- (1.) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during pendency of this application, applicant No.2 died. Learned counsel therefore, seeks leave to delete the name of applicant No.2. Leave granted. Deletion be carried out forthwith.
(2.) By this criminal application, the applicants seek quashing and setting aside the proceeding of S.C.C. No. 1761 of 1997 pending in the file of J.M.F.C. Parbhani.
(3.) Brief facts giving rise to the present criminal application are as follows:- a) On 15.11.1996, respondent No.2 complainant visited the M/s. Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation, Sub Regional Office, Parbhani and during the inspection, found stock of insecticide viz. Quinalphos 25%E.C. with brand name Quinalphos 25%EC, bearing batch No. 27/96 with manufacturing date, October 1996 and expiry date March, 1998 manufactured by applicant No.1 for sale. Respondent No.2 complainant suspected the quality of said insecticides and thus for testing purpose, obtained samples in three intact tin packing of one liter each, by purchasing it on credit. One portion of such sample was given to dealer and acknowledgment was obtained on the office copy of the sample. Second portion of the sample was sent to the Government Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Aurangabad, who vide its report dated 29.1.1997, received on 5.2.1997, reported that the insecticides Quinalphos 25% as aforesaid, has failed in content percentage and it was found to have only 21.7% content as against 25% claimed on the label. Therefore, said insecticides is treated as misbranded under the provisions of Section 3(k) (1) of the Insecticides Act 1968 (for short "the said Act"). b) The said copy of report was served on 5.2.1997 on the dealer and acknowledgment was obtained. Show cause notices were also served on the manufacturer and dealer. The complainant has thereafter obtained sanction from the Additional Director of Agriculture, (Input Quality Control), Maharashtra State, Pune and accordingly filed complaint against the applicants. The applicant No.1 is the company, which is manufacturing and supplying the said insecticides to accused No.2, who is the person responsible with accused No.1. Applicant No.3 is the firm involved in supply and sale of insecticide. Applicant No.4 is the person responsible for the firm of applicant No.3. It has alleged in the complaint that the applicants accused have contravened the provisions of Section 33 of the said Act and committed offences punishable under Sections 29(1) (a) and 29 (3) r.w. Sections 17, 18 and 33 of the said Act. Learned Magistrate, by order dated 21.12.1998, was pleased to issue process against the applicants for the above mentioned offences. In response to the order of issue of process, the applicants appeared before the court by filing an application for discharge. However, the court has not considered the application on the ground that the proceedings being summary proceedings, there is no provisions for discharging the accused. Hence, this Criminal application. ;