S G K PESTICIDES MANDI NO 1, ABOHAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR, DISTRICT FEROZEPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 19.8.1991 Shri Darshan Kumar Garg, Insecticide Inspector, Abohar visited the shop of M/s S.G.K. Pesticides, Abohar who is authorised dealer of M/s Goyal Chemicals (India) New Delhi for dealing in the sale of insecticides. At that time he was accompanied by Shri Sardar Singh Gill, Beldar. Shri Ashok Kumar son of Shri Manohar Lal was present at the business premises of firm M/s S.G.K. Pesticides, Abohar. Shri Darshan Kumar Garg was the Insecticides Inspector posted at Abohar authorised to seize the samples of insecticides with a view to get it analysed from the Insecticides Analyst. M/s. SGK Pesticides was holding a licence for dealing in the sale of insecticides issued to them by the Lincencing Authority i.e. The Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur appointed under the Insecticides Act. Shri Darshan Kumar Garg, Insecticide Inspector was appointed/notified as Insecticides Inspector under the Insecticides Act vide Punjab Government notification No. 819 (Agr) VIII -76, dated February, 1976 with a view to carry out the purposes of the Act. At the time of his visit to the business premises of M/s SGK Pesticides, Abohar Monocrotophos 36% SL manufactured by M/s Goyal Chemicals (India) New Delhi was lying for sale to the farmers. He disclosed/intimated his intention through writing that he was Insecticides Inspector authorised to seize samples of insecticides with a view to have them analysed from the Insecticide Analyst and that he was there with a view to seize the sample of Monocrotophos 36% manufactured by M/s Goyal Chemicals (India) New Delhi. Thereafter, he took three sealed containers of Monocrotophos 36% SL of batch No. 018 each containing one litre of insecticides on payment of necessary price and paid him necessary price therefor. Seizure memo was prepared. It was signed by Shri Ashok Kumar. Thereafter, each of these containers was put in separate polythene bags. Seizure memo was also put in the bag: The sample was sealed with the seal of 'II Abohar'. The dealer was asked to put his seal on the sample. He refused to do so. One sealed sample was handed over to Shri Ashok Kumar. In token of receipt of that sample Mr. Ashok Kumar gave receipt to the Insecticides Inspector. The sample was taken according to the procedure laid down in section 22(5) of the Insecticides Act read with rules 33 and 34 of the Insecticide Rules, 1971. One sealed sample was sent to the Insecticide Laboratory, Amritsar. One sample was kept in the office of the Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur for record. The Insecticide Analyst vide report found that the sample did not conform to the relevant ISI specifications in active ingredients percentage as the sample contained 29.6% instead of 36% active ingredient and thus it was misbranded under section 3(K)(i) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. On these allegations Shri Darshan Kumar Garg instituted a complaint under sections 3(k) (i), 17, 18 and 33 of the Act punishable under section 29 of the Act read with rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar against M/s SGK Pesticides through Shri Ashok Kumar, partner of the firm -dealer and M/s Goyal Chemicals (India), New Delhi.

(2.) M /s SGK Pesticides through partner Ashok Kumar and Parveen Kumar son of Dharam Pal have prayed for quashing of this complaint pending in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar and all consequential proceedings taken therein after its institution, through this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that sample was taken on 19.8.1991 and complaint was instituted on 11.9.1992. The date of expiry of shelf -life was May, 1992. The Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur issued show cause notice on 13.9.1991. Vide letter No. 15812/PP the petitioners were called upon to show cause why their licence to deal in the sale of insecticides be not cancelled. They were called upon to reply to the show cause notice within fifteen days of the date of receipt thereof. They gave a detailed reply to the show cause notice on 27.9.1991, which was received by the Chief Agricultural Officer. In their reply, in para No. 10 it was specifically mentioned that they were not satisfied and with the report - of the Insecticide Analyst of Amritsar Laboratory and that other part of the sample he sent to some other established laboratory for analysis as Amritsar Laboratory was newly set up laboratory. The sample was never sent by the Chief Agricultural Officer for re -analysis either to the Central Insecticide Laboratory or to some other laboratory. The petitioners made an application to the court also for sending the second sample for reanalysis but the said application was dismissed with the remarks that no proceedings were pending before the court. Valuable right given to the petitioners by section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 was made nugatory by the delayed institution of the complaint against them because of the petitioners having been deprived of their valuable right to have the sample analysed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory or from some other Laboratory was taken away for no fault of others but for the fault of the prosecution this complaint is liable to be quashed. Further the petitioners are merely dealers having supplied the sample to the Insecticide inspector in the same condition in which it had been supplied to them by the manufacturer, they are not liable when the sample was in sealed container in view of the provisions of section 30(3) of the Act.