KANWALJIT SINGH JOSON Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) for quashing of Complaint No. 15 dated 17.1.2013 under Sections 3(k)(i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 ('the Act' short) read with Insecticide Rules, 1971 (' Rules 1971' for short) titled as ' State v. M/s Balaji Sales Corporation and Others', which is pending adjudication at Bathinda, (Annexure P1) and summoning order dated 17.1.2013 (Annexure P2) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner.

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is one of the Director of the Company, namely, M/s Pioneer Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., Samba (J&K) having its registered Office at Chandigarh (for short 'M/s PPPL'). The respondent-complainant has filed the criminal complaint No. 15 dated 17.1.2015 under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18,29 and 33 of the Act read with Rule 27(5) of the Rules,1971. Petitioner-Kanwaljit Singh Josan is arrayed as accused No.4 in the complaint. After hearing the complainant, the trial Court has issued summoning order dated 17.1.2013 (Annexure P2) against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already put in appearance before the trial Court and was granted bail.

(3.) Learned counsel has submitted that a perusal of the complaint (Annexure P1), shows that the same has been instituted with the allegations that on 11.8.2011, while checking the premises of M/s Balaji Sales Corporation, Maur Mandi, stock of insecticides were found in the premises, which were purchased by the complainant after obtaining the consent of the said dealer, who is one of the co-accused. It is further alleged in the complaint that after drawing samples,as per the procedure laid down in the Act and its Rules 1971, the same were sealed, as per Rules and were sent for analysis to Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Amritsar. The samples were declared misbranded as it did not conform ISI specification and its active ingredients were found to be less than the standard ingredients. Thereafter, on the basis of the Analyst report, a show cause notice was issued under Section 24(2) of the Act to all the accused persons and after affording opportunity to the dealer, distributor and manufacturing firm, the complaint (Annexure P1) was filed before the trial Court in which vide summoning order dated 17.1.2013 (Annexure P2), petitioners and co-accused were summoned.