SOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition seeking quashing of the Complaint No.26 dtd. 12/1/2018 under Sec. 3(k)(i),17,18,29,33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rules 27(5) of Insecticides Rules, 1971(Annexure P-1) and the Summoning Order dtd. 12/1/2018(Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom; qua the petitioners.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.2 is a manufacturing firm having license to manufacture the insecticides under the Insecticides Act, 1968. Petitioner No. 1, the proprietor of the firm and petitioner No. 3 is the employee of the firm. It is pleaded in the petition that on 7/7/2012 samples of insecticide, namely, Cartap Hydrochloride 4% GR, Batch No.C-1, was taken by the Insecticide Inspector, Maur, Distt.Bathinda. The sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst on 9/7/2012. As per the report of the Public Analyst the same was found to be misbranded. Accordingly, the report was made by the Public Analyst on 17/7/2012; which was duly received in the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda. However, the above said authority did not file the complaint at that time. Subsequently, sanction for prosecution is applied for by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda on 20/2/2017. The same was granted by the Sanctioning Authority on 17/4/2017. Thereafter, the above said complaint has been filed by the Insecticide Inspector on 12/1/2018. In this complaint, the present petitioners have been summoned to face the trial under Ss. 3(k)(i),17,18,29 and 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968. Challenging this Complaint and the Summoning Order, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that even as per the admitted fact the date of taking sample is 7/7/2012. Date of report of Public Analyst is 17/7/2012. The Complaint has been filed on 12/1/2018. This Complaint is hopelessly time barred, being much beyond the limitation as prescribed under Sec. 468 of Cr.P.C. It is contended that the maximum punishment for the offences alleged in the Complaint is two years. Therefore, the Complaint, by any means could have been filed within a period of three years. Since the Complaint has not been so filed within limitation, therefore, the Magistrate could not have taken the cognizance of the offence being statutorily barred under Sec. 468 of Cr.P.C. Hence even the Summoning Order passed by the Magistrate stands vitiated.