K.R. DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Mr. K.R. Dass, Managing Director of M/s. Ventech Industry Limited, Hyderabad for quashing of complaint Annexure P1 filed under sections 3K(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda and all subsequent proceedings taken therein.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 9.4.1996, one Sher Singh Agriculture Development Officer-cum-Insecticide Inspector inspected the premises of M/s. Maheshwari Pesticides, Raman Mandi and took samples of monocrotophos 36% SL. The Insecticide Inspector took three pieces of half litres each manufactured in September 1992, the expiry date of which was February 1994, manufactured by M/s. Ventech Pesticides Limited, Hyderabad. A sample was sent to the insecticide testing Laboratory, Ludhiana by the Chief Agricultural Officer vide his letter No. 142 dated 27.3.1993 for analysis. On analysis, sample was declared misbranded as it did not conform to the ISI specifications as the active ingredient was found to be 32.16% instead of 36% SL. On the request of M/s. Maheshwari Pesticides, the sample was sent to Central Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Faridabad. After analysis, that sample was also declared misbranded as active ingredients were found to be 31.5% instead of 36% SL. After obtaining consent of the Joint Director of Agriculture, who is the competent authority under section 31(1) of the Act, prosecution was launched against Jagdish Lal, B.A.V. Parsad, Quality Control Officer and the present petitioner who is stated to be Managing Director of M/s. Ventech Pesticides, referred to above. Copy of the complaint is annexed as Annexure P1 with this petition.

(3.) IN response to the notice issued, a detailed written statement has been filed on behalf of the State by Sher Singh Insecticide Inspector controverting the averments made in the petition and reiterating those taken in the impugned complaint Annexure P1.