DHARAM PAUL AMAR NATH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') relates to quashment of complaint (Annexure P2) filed against the present petitioner, and his other co-accused, under Sections 17, 18(c) 3(k) and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) In brief, according to the allegations made in the impugned complaint, moved by the Insecticide inspector, Amritsar, M/s. Modern Kheti Store, 52, Hide Market, Amritsar, deal with pesticide/ insecticides and are holding the licence for the purpose issued by the Licencing Authority (Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar) for the sale of NUVAN 76% manufactured by M/s. Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd., Bombay, who, are the licenced manufacturers of the said pesticide. On 27/08/1987 Mukhwinder Singh, Pesticide/ Insecticide Inspector, took sample of the said pesticide from M/s Modern Kheti Store, Amritsar, who, are the authorised dealer of M/s Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. (Manufacturer), in the presence of Nirmal Singh, Sub-Inspector (plant protection) in the office of the Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar. Samples in three sealed intact original containers (poly packed) were taken and put in three plythene bags, along with seizer memo separately, and each sample was duly sealed, according to the provisions of the Act, and, the 1971 Rules framed thereunder. One sealed sample was handed over to Dharam Paul petitioner (partner of the said firm), who, signed the relevant form, concerning the price of the sample tendered to him. One such sealed sample was sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad, vide registered parcel No. 8945 dated 1/09/1987, and, the same was duly received on the following day in the said Laboratory. According to the report of the Insecticide Pesticide Analyst, the sample was not satisfactory in the Emulsion stability test requirement, and the same was misbranded.

(3.) The petitioner, and, his other co-accused are said to have committed an offence under Section 18 of the Act by selling misbranded pesticide, as defied in Section 3(k) of the Act, whereas, the accused connected with the manufacture of the said pesticide are alleged to have committed offence under Section 17 of the Act, for manufacturing misbranded pesticide, and, are liable for penal action under Section 33 of the Act. It was also pleaded that in this case the activities of the manufacturer/distributor/dealer are sufficiently connected in case of sale of misbranded NUVAN by a unity of purpose and the design, and, thus render them guilty for punishment under Section 29(i) of the Act.