KHETI SEWA CENTRE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s Kheti Sewa Centre Bajewala, Mansa, has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of complaint Annexure P.8 under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 and the case set up in short by the petitioner is that he being a dealer, and that sample was taken from a sealed container; in these circumstances, he cannot be prosecuted in a complaint much less when the Appellate Authority vide Annexure P.7 had already restored his licence. The case of the petitioner is being defeated by respondent-authorities firstly by placing reliance on 1990(2) RCR 442 Daulat Ram Kamra v. The State of Punjab and secondly that disputed questions of fact cannot be investigated and gone into by this Court in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) BEFORE I deal further into the matter, it will be useful for me to first refer to the complaint itself. In para No. 4 of the said complaint it had been stated that the shop of the petitioner was inspected by Amarjit Lal Insecticides Inspector, Mansa on 29.9.1995 in the presence of Jagtar Singh and Banarsi Dass Prop. of the firm. At that time Banarsi Dass Proprietor of the firm and his representative Pawan Kumar were present and it was found that the firm had not displayed the licence in a prominent place in the part of the premises open to the public; that Insecticides were not properly stored; that the firm had not displayed the stock and price list of insecticides; that the sample was not properly lebelled. However, it has been mentioned that 56 litres of Quinalphos 25 per cent E.C. of 4 litre bearing batch No. 403, manufacturing date May 95 and expiry date April, 1996, manufactured by respondent No. 3 were lying with the firm respondent No. 1 at the time of inspection i.e. 29.9.1995 as shown in form XX. One container of the capacity of four litres was selected. Its manufacturing date was May, 1995 and expiry date was April, 1996. Its contents were shaken and thereafter were filled in three empty containers of 250 Ml.

(3.) AS I submitted above, the case of the petitioner is being defeated by the State by raising a moot point of fact by urging that it is a matter yet to be decided by evidence that whether the petitioner had knowledge that the contents of the sample were not misbranded. This defence of the State is not tenable, in view of the specific allegations as contained in para No. 5(g) of the complaint which prima facie indicates that the sample was taken from a sealed container and there is no averment in the complaint itself that the petitioner had the knowledge of the contents having misbranded. The case law which has been relied upon by the State 1990(2) RCR 442 Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, will not be helpful to the State in view of the plain reading of Section 30(3) and in view of the dictum of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court. In this regard with approval, I may quote 1997(1) RCR 42 M/s Delhi Agriculture Store v. State of Punjab, where his Lordship was pleased to hold while interpreting the provisions of Section 30(3) that a dealer of insecticides, if he sells the insecticides/pesticides in a packed condition as packed by the manufacturing company, such person is protected under Section 30(3) of the Act. The second case law which can be relied upon is 1996(3) RCR 140 Amar Khad Store v. State of Punjab, where similar point was answered by his Lordship.