UNIQUE FARMAID (P) LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Haryana represented by the Quality Control Inspector Sonepat filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sonepat under Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the Act), for trying the punishing the present petitioners and four others for violations of Sections 3(k)(i), 17 and 18 of the Act. The first petitioner herein is the manufacturer of monochrotophos, an insecticide, and the second petitioner herein is the sales manager of the first petitioner. They were arrayed as accused 5 and 6 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Messrs, Vikas Beej Bhandar is 1st accused and Sh. Sukhbir Singh, the proprietor of the said firm, is the 2nd accused before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Though we are not now concerned with these accused 1 and 2 and the other two accused, namely accused 3 and 4 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, I have mentioned about the 1st and the 2nd accused for the sake of completion, since reference has to be made them in the course of this judgement.

(2.) FROM the complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the following facts emerge: The Quality Control Inspector Sonepat made a surprise check of the premises of Masers. Vikas Beej Bhandar on 5.8.94. He drew three samples of monochrotophos - 36% SL, gave one sealed sample to Sukhbir Singh, proprietor of Messrs. Vikas Beej Bhandar, sent another sample to the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory (Insecticides) Karnal and the third sample was deposited with the Deputy Director Agriculture, Sonepat. The Quality Control Laboratory sent the analysis report declaring that the sample of monochrotopos - 36% SL in question was misbranded. Notices dated 30.9.1994 along with the analysis report of the sample were sent to Messrs. Vikas Beej Bhandar and also the manufacturer, namely the 1st petitioner herein, for which the petitioner had sent a reply (dated 8.10.94). According to the complainant, the reply was not satisfactory and, therefore, after obtaining the consent for launching prosecution he preferred the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sonepat. The complaint is dated 20.1.1995.

(3.) THE petitioners, namely the manufacturer and the sales manager (of the insecticide in question) have now come forward with this application under Section 482, Code of Cr. Procedure, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing this complaint (Annexure P -2) and the consequential proceedings. The petitioners contend that even according to the case of the complainant, the manufacturing date of the insecticide was March, 1994, while the expiry date was February, 1995, and, therefore, when the petitioners were summoned to appear in the Court on 6.4.1995, they had lost their very valuable right of getting the sample re -analysed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory, as provided for under Section 24(4) of the Act and, therefore, allowing the petitioners to stand prosecution will be an abuse of process of Court and hence the complaint should be quashed. Report of the chemical analysis attached with this petition is Annexure P -1 shows that the manufacturing date of the insecticide was March, 1994, and the expiry date was February, 1995. This has also been admitted in the reply filed by the State which has been taken on record while hearing this application. It is also not disputed that the petitioners have been ordered to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 6.4.1995, i.e., after the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide. It is also noteworthy that the petitioners have, in their reply to the show case notice claimed that they intend to adduce evidence in support of their contentions raised in the reply and have also requested that a sample should be got analysed from the Central Referee Laboratory as per the provisions of Section 24(4) of the Act at their cost. In the reply filed by the respondent -State, it has been stated that the petitioners were informed by letter dated 14.11.1994 to the effect that the Deputy Director Agriculture Sonepat was not competent to send sample for retesting and that the petitioners should request the concerned Court. The respondents contend that the petitioners ought to have taken steps before the concerned Court for testing the sample and they not having done so, are not entitled to find fault with the respondent. But the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the complainant itself was filed on 20.1.1995 by the Quality Control Inspector and the petitioners were summoned to appear before the Court only on 6.4.1995 and, so, when no proceedings were pending, the petitioners could not have made request to any Court for testing the sample till 6.4.1995 by which time the shelf life of the insecticide in question had expired and, therefore, the petitioner had lost their valuable right to have the sample tested by the Central Laboratory. The petitioners contend that they were further more handicapped by the fact that they did not even have the sample drawn by the Quality Control Inspector, since one sample was given to the dealer, the other sample was sent to the Analyst and the third sample was deposited with the Deputy Director of Agriculture and, therefore also they could not have approached the Court for re -analysing the sample.