D A VAISHNAV Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer of the petitioner in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is for quashing the complaint dated 7-8-1992 (Ann. P. 2), under Sections 3(k) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short, the 'Act') read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rule 1971, pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga, and also for quashing all consequential proceedings arising thereof.

(2.) M/s. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Company Ltd., Chandigarh, (petitioner) is a licenced manufacturer of different insecticides/pesticides including Butachlore 50% E. C. and Shri D. A. Vaishnav is its Marketing Manager. As per the allegations made in the complaint, on 12-6-1990, Shri Kirpal Singh, Insecticides Inspector, Moga-2, alongwith Sukhdev Singh, Agricultural Inspector, visited the premises of M/s. Cass Ghal Kalan, District Faridkot, the dealer, and drew 3 samples of Butachlore 50% E. C., manufactured by the petitioner Company. One sealed sample was handed over to Shri Balkaran Singh, Secretary CASs Ltd., ghal Kalan while other two samples were sent to Major Singh, Enforcement Officer, on 14-6-1990, who further sent the same to Ludhiana Laboratory on 18-6-1990. On 17-7-1990, the sample was analysed by the Analyst, who vide report (Ann. P. 1) found the same as mis-branded as it did not conform to ISI specifications. Consequently, complaint ( Ann. P. 2), as stated above, was filed against the dealer, distributor and the petitioner-manufacturing Company. It is alleged that the date of manufacturing was 3-3-1990 and its expiry date was 2-3-1992, whereas the complaint was filed on 7-8-1992, and as such, the petitioner has been deprived of its valuable right under Section 24(3) of the Act due to the negligence on the part of the complainant-respondent. It is further alleged that no legal and valid sanction under Section 31 of the Act, has been granted.

(3.) On notice of motion having been issued, the respondent filed reply in the form of affidavit of Kirpal Singh, Insecticides Inspector Moga-2, wherein the factual position with regard to the taking of sample on 12-6-1990, has not been disputed. It has further been pleaded that the delay was due to the fault on the part of the petitioner-firm as no responsible person was present in the firm when the answering-respondent approached them.