- (1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to quashment of complaint under Section 3 (k) (i) 17, 18, 33 punishable under section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as tie Act) read with Rules 27 (5) of (he 'insecticides Rules), 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and consequent proceedings taken thereunder.
(2.) IN brief, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition as emerge from complaint, Annexure P-1, are, that Shri Charan Singh Bhullar, insecticide Inspector, filed the aforesaid complaint against M/s Daulat Ram Kamra and Sons (hereinafter referred to as the dealer) and Shri Trilok Singh proprietor of M/s United Pesticides, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as the Manufacturer), the present petitioner on the allegations that on 25-8-1987 Shri Wasawa Ram Insecticide Inpector Fazilka along with Shri Jarnail Singh. A. S. I. Fazilka went to the shop of dealer at Fazilka, and Harbans Lal son of Shri Daulat Ram Kamra proprietor was present in the shop The insecticide Inspector after giving intimation in writing, took sample of United Mono (Monocrotophos 36% S. L.) of Batch No. 6 manufactured on 25. 8. 1987. Three sealed containers of United Mono (Monocrotophos 36% SL) each measuring ore litre were taken as sample vide seizure memo. Thereafter the containers were duly sealed. The three containers were put in polythene bags which were duly sealed. Cost of (be sample was also paid, to the dealer at that time. One. S (cis)aled sample was handed over to Harbans Lal aforesaid and the second ore was sent to Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana on the following day whereas, the third was kept in the office of Insecticide Inspector on 26. 8. 1987. As per report of the Analyst it was found that the said sample did not conform to the relevant ISI specification in the active ingrenient as if contained only 16. 71% of such ingredient, instead of 36% SL. According to the Insecticide Inspector the sample of Insecticide taken in this case was misbranded as contemplated under section 3 (k) (i) of the Act It was further pleaded that the copy of the analysis was, also delivered to the dealer, vide, office letter No. 20383 dated 21. 10. 1987. In view of the report of Analyst it was further alleged that the insectici es supplied by manufacturer to the dealer was misbranded ; that the manufacturer and the dealer had jointly committed an offence punishable under sections 17, 18 3 (k) (i) and 33 punishable under section 29 of the Act.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the parties were heard.;