HYBRID SEEDS AND PESTICIDES Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - M/s Hybrid Seeds and Pesticides, Mandi No. 1, Abohar, District Ferozepur through its partner Mr. Anil Kumar, and Mr. Rakesh Kumar have filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the State of Punjab, for the quashment of complaint under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33, punishable under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, as well as all the consequential proceedings arising out of the said complaint pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar.

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is a licensed dealer and is carrying on the business in the name and style of M/s Hybrid Seeds and Pesticides. The Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur has granted dealer's licence to the petitioner for the purpose of selling, stocking, exhibiting different types of insecticides/pesticides. Petitioner No. 1 is selling the pesticides/insecticides manufactured by registered manufacturers. Petitioner No. 2 is the partner of M/s Hybrid Seeds and Pesticides, Mandi No. 1, Abohar (petitioner No. 1).

(3.) AFTER the sample was found misbranded, the petitioners received copy of the Analyst's report along with the show cause notice dated 19th March, 1997. The petitioner gave detailed reply to the show cause notice on 3rd April, 1997. In the reply it was specifically stated that the Insecticide Inspector took the sample from the sealed intact original container and the insecticide was being sold in the same state in its original packing as received from the manufacturers and the same was stored properly and it remained in the same state as the petitioner-firm acquired from the manufacturer. The petitioners specifically stated that the sealed intact sample was taken by the Insecticide Inspector from the proper storing in a perfect and good condition and the petitioners were entitled for protection under Section 30(3) of the Act as the petitioners had purchased the insecticides from the licensed manufacturer and the sample was taken from the sealed intact container. It was further alleged that while purchasing the insecticides the petitioner-firm performed due and reasonable diligence and the petitioners with reasonable and diligence could not come to know that the sealed intact container purchased from licenced manufacturer contained misbranded insecticide and alleged that the analysis report received by the petitioners was defective and was unacceptable to the petitioner-firm and showed their intention to adduce the evidence in contravention of the said report in accordance with the provisions of Section 24(3) of the Act and claimed protection under Section 30(3) of the Act. It is also alleged by the petitioners that the manufacturer of the insecticide had also applied for the re-testing of the second part of the sample which was allowed by the Chief Agricultural Officer vide letter dated 24th April, 1997 but the same was not sent by the Chief Agricultural Officer to the Central Insecticide Laboratory for re-testing on the pretext that the manufacturer did not appear to send it for re-test. According to the petitioners, as per the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, if the manufacturer or the dealer showed his intention to controvert the report of the regional laboratory, then the second part of the sample is to be sent for re-testing.