SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned DAG for the State of Punjab-respondent. By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., a prayer has been made seeking the quashing of the complaint dated 6.6.1994, copy Annexure P-1 and all consequential proceedings following therefrom. The respondent-Insecticides Inspector, Kotkapura, District Faridkot filed a criminal complaint, copy Annexure P1, under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 & 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, in the Court of JMIC, Faridkot against the petitioner, Director of M/s Cashew Agriculture Chemicals (P) Limited, Faridkot manufacturing insecticides under the name of Monocrotophos 36%. The said manufacture was covered under the schedule of the Insecticides Act and duly registered under the Central Insecticides Board, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi. The respondent Insecticides Inspector drew three samples of the said insecticide Monocrotophos 36% manufactured in batch No. CA 74 having been manufactured in July 1992. The expiry date of the said insecticide was June, 1993. The said samples were drawn from the premises of M/s Sonu Sales Corporation, Jaitu, District Faridkot on 21.7.1992. One sealed sample of the insecticide was sent for analysis to Senior Analyst, PAS-I, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, situated near Tehsil Office, Amritsar on 28.7.1992. The report of the Analyst showed the sample to be misbranded as it did not conform to its specification in respect of the percentage of active ingredients contents. A notice was issued to the petitioner regarding the sample being found misbranded by the Insecticides Inspector, in the requisite form on 17.9.1992 to which the petitioner sent a reply and also sought the sample handed over to him of the said insecticide, be sent for reanalysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. However, no action was taken on this prayer of the petitioners and as noted above the criminal complaint was filed on 7.6.1994. The impugned complaint is being sought to be quashed on the sole ground that the shelf life of the insecticide expired on June 1993 whereas the complaint was filed much later i.e. on 7.6.1994 and this has greatly prejudiced the defence of the petitioners and the same has deprived him of his valuable right of getting the second sample of the insecticide reanalysed by the Central Insecticides Testing Laboratory.

(2.) NOTICE was issued to the respondents who put in appearance and filed reply to the petition wherein it has been admitted inter alia that the Licensing Authority was asked by the petitioners to send the sample for reanalysis. It was, however, contended that in view of the provisions contained in Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act only the Court before in which proceedings are pending can send the sample for reanalysis. It has also not been disputed that the complaint was filed much after the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in Surinder Pal Saini v. State of Punjab, 1997(1) RCR 603, wherein under somewhat similar circumstances, the impugned complaint filed under the Insecticides Act was quashed on the ground of the complaint having been filed after the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide and thereby greatly prejudicing the right of the petitioner in having the certain samples reanalysed. In view of the foregoing discussion of this Court, and the case being squarely covered by the decision in Surinder Pal Saini's case (supra), this petition is allowed and the impugned complaint, Annexure P-1 and proceedings flowing therefrom are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.