PESTO-CHEM (INDIA) LTD. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the quashing of the complaint dated 4.9.1993, copy Annexure P1, filed by respondent-Insecticide Inspector Goniana Mandi, District Bhatinda Baldev Singh in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda under Sections 3k(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short the Insecticides Act) read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971.

(2.) AS per the averments made in the impugned complaint, M/s Satish Kumar and Company, Goniana Mandi, owned by Satish Kumar, was dealing in Insecticide/Pesticide and was holding a valid licence issued by the Licensing Authority i.e. Chief Agriculture Officer, Bhatinda. The Insecticides Inspector Baldev Singh inspected the shop of M/s Satish Kumar and Co., Goniana on 16.8.1991 in the presence of Shri Sat Pal, Agriculture Officer, Goniana Mandi. Out of 20 litres of Quinalphos 25% E.C., he selected on litre of Quinalphos as representative sample out of 20 litres and made three portions of the sample of 250 ml. each. The batch number of the said Insecticide was 14 and it was manufactured in July 1991 and was due to expire in June 1992. It was manufactured by the petitioner M/s Pesto Chem. India. One of the samples drawn according to the rules was sent for analysis to the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana vide letter No. TA-44 dated 22.8.1991. On analysis the said sample was found mis-branded as it did not conform to the prescribed active ingredients contents. The active ingredients were found 3.81% instead of 25%. A copy of the report was delivered to the dealer and the manufacturer with a show cause notice as per requirement of Section 24(2) of the Insecticides Act vide letters issued by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bhatinda Nos. 16402 dated 3.10.1991 and 17333 dated 23.10.1991 respectively. Replies were also received from the manufacturer and the dealer which are dated 18.10.1991 and 24.10.1991. The dealer was conveyed by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bhatinda with reference to his reply that as desired by him to re-analyse the sample, he may apply for the same through the concerned Court. Memo No. 4869 dated 27.3.1992 in this regard was sent, a copy of which was enclosed with the complaint. The complaint was filed after necessary sanction was granted by the Additional Director of Agriculture (Plant Protection) Punjab, Chandigarh against Satish Kumar and the petitioner M/s Pesto-Chem India.

(3.) NOTICE was issued to the respondent who filed written statement wherein it was contended that the sample was drawn after following the requisite rules and the copy of the report of the Insecticides Testing Laboratory was duly sent to the dealer and the manufacturer and as per request made by the dealer it was informed that it (dealer) could apply to the concerned Court for getting the sample re-analysed.