B.S. AGNIHOTRI Vs. JAGDEEP SINGH BRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners B.S. Agnihotri and Mewa Singh are seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings pending against them before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, filed by Jagdeep Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Guruharsahai, Punjab, for instituting the prosecution against the petitioners under Sections 3(k), 17, 18 and 33 read with Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, for which the said Inspector has been authorised by the Joint Director of Agriculture, while exercising the powers conferred upon him under Section 31 of the Insecticide Act, 1968, to lodge a prosecution against M/s Zimidara Pesticides, Guruharsahai and M/s Searle India Limited, Bombay, Manufacturer.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the petitioner No. 1 at the relevant time was the Marketing Manager of M/s. Searle India Limited, which is a public limited company, and is manufacturing among other things pesticides including the pesticide known as Trapp 50%. In execution of that power the said Inspector visited the shop of M/s Zimidara Pesticides, Guruharsahai District Ferozepur on 28.5.1990 where one Daljit Kumar was found present at the time of visit. On intimation to him in writing, the said Inspector drew the sample to Trapp 50% batch No. 114 manufactured by M/s Searle India Limited. Three sealed one litre tin packing to Trapp 50% EC of batch No. 114 were taken as samples and seizure memo was prepared upon which the signatures of Daljit Kumar, proprietor of M/s Zimidara Pesticides, Guruharsahai were obtained. These tins were put in polythene bags separately and the memo was also put therein. The samples were sealed. The cost of the samples was paid to the dealer. One sample packet was handed over to the proprietor of the firm M/s Zimidara Pesticides, Guruharsahai and receipt was taken in lieu of the sample. The samples were taken according to the procedure prescribed in the Insecticide Act, 1968. One sample so taken was sent to the State Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana and the other sample was deposited in the office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur. On receipt of report of the analyst, it was found that the sample does not conform to the specification with regard to its total relevant contents, as the sample contained 47.58% ingredients against 50% active ingredient. Thus the sample was misbranded under Section 3K(i) of the Insecticide Act.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, also bestowed my thoughtful consideration over the record on the file.