B.S. RANA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Mr. B.S. Rana for quashing the complaint No. 271 of 2005 (Annexure P-10) titled State v. M/s Suraj Kheti Store, Ajnala and others pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala, District Amritsar, under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33 of The Insecticides Act, 1968 (for brevity 'the Act') and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 29th October, 2003, Baljinder Singh Sandhu, Insecticide Inspector Chogawan, District Amritsar inspected the premises of M/s Suraj Kheti Store, Ajnala Road, Chogawan, District Amritsar and drew the sample of Glyphostate 41% S.L. having its manufacturing date June, 2003 and expiry date May, 2005. The sample was divided into three parts, one part was sent for its analysis to the Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh. After its analysis, the sample was found misbranded on 18th November, 2004. On receipt of analysis report, a show cause notice was served to the petitioner. After the receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner company filed a detailed reply thereto, stating therein that in the present case, the sample was tested after more than 365 days, which is a violation of the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act. Another show case notice/personal hearing dated 4th May, 2005 and 17th March, 2005 was served to the petitioner. Reply was filed thereto stating therein that the sample was tested after the period of 30 days, which is violation of the above-mentioned Section. Secondly, the details of the test report i.e. Chromatic Chart of the failure of the sample was not supplied to the petitioner in compliance with the letter issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi. Instead of sending the aforesaid chart to the petitioner company by the Department of Agriculture, the present complaint dated 11th May, 2005 was filed in the aforementioned Court, which summoned the petitioner for 12th July, 2005. The shelf life of the sample had already expired, with the result, the petitioner has lost his fundamental right to get the refer sample re-analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad, Sequelly, the complaint as well as subsequent proceedings arising there from are liable to be quashed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.