M N MURLI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 26.11.92, Hardev Singh, Insecticide Inspector inspected business premises of M/s Hans Raj Des Raj, Qadian Tehsil Batala. At that time Shri Hans Raj Proprietor of the firm was present. Shri Hardev Singh disclosed his identity that he was Insecticide Inspector authorised to seize insecticide/weedicide lying in the shop with a view to have it analysed. M/s Hans Raj Des Raj Qadian was dealing in insecticides/weedicides under a licence issued by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur, Shri Hans Raj was responsible for the business of the firm as proprietor of the firm. Shri Hardev Singh, Insecticide Inspector disclosed his intention to seize the sample of 2 -4 -d Ethyl Ester 34% EC (Heepa -44) Batch No. lying in the shop which was manufactured by M/D Hindustan Pulversing Mills Delhi. The product 2 -4 -D Ethyl Ester 34% EC known as weedicides was meant for public sale to the agriculturists as a weedicide in their fields. Shri Hardev Singh, Insecticide Inspector served notice indicative of his intention to seize the sample of said weedicide. Shri Hans Raj Proprietor of the Firm signed that notice. Shri Ramesh Chander Agriculture Officer, Sri Hargobindpur and Sh. Dalip Singh Walia Agricultural Development Officer, Sri Hargobindpur witnessed that notice. Shri Hardev Singh, Insecticide Inspector purchased 3 sealed tins of 2 -4 -D Ethyl Ester 34% EC measuring half litre each on payment of Rs. 135/ - against bill No. 21, dated 26.11.92. Bill No. 21, dated 26.11.92 was duly signed by the son of the proprietor of the firm. 3 sealed tins so purchased were put in polythene bags in the same condition. Information slip was put in each of the bags which was signed by Shri Hardev Singh, Insecticide Inspector. Each of the polythene bags was secured by means of thread and was sealed with the seal bearing impression No. 18 Fertiliser Inspector, Gurdaspur. One sealed sample was handed over to Shri Hans Raj Proprietor of the firm. Remaining 2 sealed samples were deposited in, the office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur out of which one sealed sample was sent to the Senior Analyst, Insecticide Laboratory, Department of Agricultural, Punjab, Civil Station Bathinda as per provisions of Section 21(6) of the Insecticide Act through Sh. Satnam Singh book binder, Gurdaspur: Report on. analysis of the sample of weedicide was received in the office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur on 7.1.93. According to that report sample of weedicide was not conforming to the required specifications. According to that report the percentage of active ingredients was 27.15% EC out of 34% EC and the sample was thus deficient by 6.85% EC active ingredient. On receipt of the said report, copy thereof was sent to the accused vide letter No. 491, dated 15.1.93. The aforesaid weedicide had been supplied to Firm M/s Hans Raj Des Raj Qadian by M/s National Pesticides Jalandhar Road Batala. Aforesaid weedicide had been manufactured by M/s Hindustan Pulverising Mills Delhi. M/s Hans Raj Des Raj Qadian, M/s National Pesticides Jalandhar Road Batala and M/s Hindustan Pulverising Mills Delhi thus committed an offence punishable under section 3(k)(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 by selling/supplying/ manufacturing/storing weedicides which was not conforming to standards a laid down in the Insecticides Act, 1968. Complaint was instituted in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur by Shri Hardev Singh, Insecticide Inspector against M/s Hans Raj Qadian -Dealer, M/s National Pesticides Jalandhar Road Batala, Distributor and M/s Hindustan Pulverising Mills Delhi manufacturer under section 3(k)(1) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 on 5.1 94 (Annexure P -1).

(2.) THIS Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by Shri M.N. Murli Kumar s/o. Shri A.N. Murli, Chief Chemist of M/s Hindustan Pulverising Mills, Delhi and M/s Hindustan Pulverising Mills, Azadpur, Delhi seeking quashing of complaint Annexure P -1 as also all consequential proceedings taken in that complaint subsequent to its institution.

(3.) IN support of their prayer they have alleged that the Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur gave show cause notice to petitioner No. 2 vide letter No. 495, dated 15.1.1993. Petitioner gave detailed reply vide letter dated 22.1.93 requesting the Chief Agricultural Officer to send the second part of the sample to any other government approved laboratory at their own expense. Copy of reply dated 22.1.93 furnished by them is Annexure P.2. Date of expiry of the sample was November 1993. Complaint Annexure P.1 was filed on 5.1.1994. Petitioners had thus hardly any time for making request to the court for getting the sample re -analyzed from the government approved laboratory. Petitioners were, thus, deprived of their valuable right to have the sample analyzed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory. It is a very valuable right conferred upon them by the provisions of Section 24(4) of the Insecticide Act and this right has been taken away from them without any fault on their part and complaint Annexure P.1 is thus liable to be quashed. After 5.1.94 no useful purpose would have been served if they had requested the court to send the second part of the sample to the Central Insecticide Laboratory when the shelf life of the weedicide had expired in November 1993.