DEEPAK SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Deepak Sharma and others filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint titled as State v. Ml s. Friends Agro Chemicals, and others under Insecticides Act, 1968, read with Insecticides Rules, 1971, pending in the Court of JMIC, Amritsar (Annexure P1) and summoning order (Annexure P2).

(2.) State of Punjab filed complaint under Section 29 read with Sections 3(k)(i), 17,18 and 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short the Act'), read with Rules 10 and 27(5) of Insecticides Rules, 1971 (for short 'the Rules'), on the allegation that Satwinder Singh is working as Agriculture Development Officer (Plant Protection), Block Verka, District Amritsar, and was notified as Insecticide Inspector. All the Insecticide Inspectors are public servants. He was authorized to file complaint under Rule 27(5) of the Rules. Deepak Sharma and others are the partners of M/s. Friends Agro Chemicals (India). Licence was issued to the firm and it was valid upto 31.12.2005 for selling, stocking and exhibiting for the sale of insecticides. On 21.6,2004, the Insecticide Inspector alongwith other employees had inspected the premises of M/s. Friends Agro Chemicals (India). Deepak Sharma, partner of the firm, was found present at the shop premises. After introducing himself as Insecticide Inspector, notice in Form XX was issued to draw a loose sample of Butachlor 50% EC for test/analysis. One container of Butachlor 50% EC in 5 Its. Packing, brand as Butatox bearing Batch No. B.5041, manufacturing date 29.3.04 and expiry date 28.3.06, manufactured by M/s. Singhal Pesticides, 9/122, Moti Bagh, Jamunapar, Agra, was taken out of 21 tins of 5 Its. packing. After breaking seal of the container of 5 Its. packing, sample was drawn.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners had a licence on the date of checking. Sample of insecticide was drawn out of sealed container from the premises of the petitioners. The petitioners are not liable in case the sample on analysis was found to be misbranded. Paras No.2 and 3 of the complaint are reproduced as under: