SHELJA PESTICIDES CENTRE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking the quashing of complaint filed by the respondent, State of Punjab through the Insecticide Inspector, Abohar, under Section 29 of the Insecticide Act, 1968, read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971, and for quashing of all the consequential proceedings.

(2.) THE petitioner firm-M/s Shelja Pesticides Centre, Sabji Mandi, Abohar is a partnership firm, dealing in pesticides and insecticides. The Chief Agriculture Officer had granted a licence to the said firm for the purpose of selling different types of insecticides and pesticides, manufactured by different licenced manufacturers. The Insecticide Inspector, Abohar, visited the shop of the petitioner on 23.6.1989 and took three sealed containers of Monocrotophos 36% SL, each measuring 250 mls of batch No. 08. It was manufactured by a registered manufacturer, namely M/s Indian Manufacturing Company, Jaipur. Out of the three samples so taken, one was handed over to the petitioner and the another sample was sent to the State Insecticide Laboratory, Ludhiana, for analysis. The third sample was kept in the office of the Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur. The sample on analysis was declared as misbranded as it did not conform to the ISI specifications in its active ingredients. A show notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.8.1989 alongwith a copy (copy Annexure P-1) of the report of the analyst. The petitioner gave a reply to the show cause notice on 4.9.1989 (copy Annexure P-2), wherein it was contended, inter alia, that the petitioner firm was not the manufacturer and the sample had been duly sealed and contained in a container, as received from the manufacturer and as such was not misbranded by the petitioner. It remained intact till it was in the control of the petitioner. The petitioner/firm is in no way responsible for the sample being misbranded. It was requested by the petitioner that the second sample be got examined again and a fresh report be obtained in this behalf and that the manufacturer, namely Indian Manufacturing Company, B-236, Road No. 10, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur, be also associated. An opportunity of hearing was also desired by the petitioner in order to enable him to put all the relevant facts and circumstances before the Chief Agricultural Officer. It appears that the Chief Agricultural Officer did not act as requested by the petitioner inasmuch as the second sample was not sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory for re-analysis and the complaint was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka (copy Annexure P3), which is impugned in this petition. The Joint Director of Agriculture (ICDP) accorded sanction to the complainant Insecticide Inspector for prosecuting the petitioner firm and M/s Indian Manufacturing Company, aforesaid (copy Annexure P-4).

(3.) SHRI Ravinder Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the expiry date of the insecticide in question was December, 1989, whereas the impugned complaint was filed on 12.7.1990, i.e. after the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide in question. Since the impugned complaint was filed belatedly a valuable right of the petitioner for getting the second sample re-analysed has been taken away and this has greatly prejudiced his defence. Shri Chopra contended that after the receipt of the show cause notice (copy Annexure P1) dated 22.8.1989, the petitioner had well within time sent a request vide letter (copy Annexure P2) dated 4.9.1989 for sending the second sample for analysis afresh, but no action was taken on his request. In this background, Shri Chopra urged that the stand taken in the reply of the respondent that the petitioner had failed to avail the opportunity to have the second sample re-analysed, has no substance. Shri Chopra relied on a judgment of this Court delivered in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 26947/M-1997 (M/s Luxmi Dal Store v. State of Haryana), wherein under somewhat similar circumstances, the complaint was ordered to be quashed as the second sample for re-analysis was not sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, though the request had been made well within time and by then the shelf life of the insecticide had not expired. In M/s Luxmi Dal Store's case (supra), the reliance was placed on a case titled as M/s Raj Hans Chemicals v. State of Haryana through Insecticide Inspector, Kurukshetra, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5976/M-1997 and Surinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997(1) RCR(Crl.) 602 : 1996(4) All Instant Judgments 714. In State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., JT 1996(10) SC 480, the Apex Court held as under :-