MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three petitions, viz. Criminal Misc. No. 6685-M of 1988 (Mohan Lal v. State and others), Criminal Misc. No. 7566-M of 1988 (Ravinder Kumar and another v. State and others), and, Criminal Misc. No. 7569-M of 1988 (Amar Lal and another v. State and others), under S.482 of the Criminal P.C. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') relate to quashment of complaints under Ss.3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33, punishable under S.29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with R.27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), filed by the Insecticide Inspector (Chief Agricultural Officer), Ferozepore, and, the consequent proceedings taken on the said complaints, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepore. As common question of law and fact is involved in all the three petitions, these shall be disposed of by one judgement.

(2.) In brief the facts relevant for the disposal of these petitions, are, that the petitioners in all the three petitions were partners of their respective firms, and, held licences for the sale of insecticides at Mandi Abohar. Samples of Methyl Parathion 50% EC of 250 ml. packing, Aldrin 30% EC of 500 ml. packing, and, Cypermethrin 10% EC of 250 ml. packing, were duly taken by the Insecticide Inspector, Abohar, from the premises of the respective licencee firms on different dates. On analysis, the said samples did not conform to the specifications with respect to percentage and active ingredient contents. The complaints were accordingly, filed against the petitioners. Other partners of the licencee firms, as well as, the manufacturers of the aforesaid insecticides.

(3.) These facts have also been admitted by the State in its reply. Preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the State that the charge in the aforesaid complaints has not yet been framed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, and, the said Court is competent to discharge the accused, in case no material is found out at this stage, and, even could subsequently, acquit them after recording evidence.