THAKUR CHEMICALS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Gujarat Pesticides Private Limited, Kalol (Gujarat) is the manufacturer, M/s. Thakur Chemicals, Karampura, New Delhi is the distributor and M/s. Garg Trading Company, Dhand (Haryana) is the dealer of an insecticide known as Phorate 10% G.

(2.) ON 25.5.1992, the Insecticide Inspector (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) visited the business premises of the said dealer and purchased a sample of Insecticide Phorate 10% G. Batch No. 59, having manufacturing date May 1992 and expiry dated April 1993, in accordance with the provisions of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On being analysed the said sample was declared misbranded by the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Insecticides Laboratory, Karnal, by his report dated 7.7.1992. The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Kaithal forwarded a copy of the analysis report alongwith his letter No. 2833 dated 16.7.1992 to the dealer M/s. Garg Trading Company, Dhand and intimated the manufacturer vide letter of the even date. After obtaining necessary sanction the complainant filed a complaint (Annexure P-1) dated 20.3.1993 under Sections 29(1) (a) and 17(1)(a) of the Act against the said dealer, distributor and the manufacturer, cognizance of which was taken by the Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal and the accused were summoned. The distributor was served on 9.5.1994 for appearance before the court.

(3.) NOTICE of motion was given to the respondent. In reply it has been stated that the sample was purchased on 28.5.1992, that the copy of the analysis report was sent to the dealer along with letter dated 16.7.1992 as per provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act; that the dealer had applied to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Kaithal for re-analysis of the sample on 31.7.1992 vide letter (Annexure P.2) but his request was turned down by order dated 11.8.1992 (Annexure P.3) while intimating that it was only the court under whose orders the counterpart of the sample could be re-analysed, and that there was no obligation on the part of the department to send a copy of the said report to the petitioner. It has been further stated that the complaint was filed on 20.3.1993 while the expiry of the sample was April, 1993 and the dealer was aware about the facts of the alleged sample as he had already been intimated with the analysis report; and that the distributor is directly attached with the dealer and is liable jointly for the offence in question.