V.M.JAIN,J - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC filed by the accused petitioners, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint under the Insecticide Act and the rules framed thereunder and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon.
(2.) ACCUSED petitioner No. 1 M/s M.L. Industries is the manufacturer of the insecticide which was found to be misbranded, not only by the State Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal but later on also by the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Hyderabad, under Section 24(2) and 24(4) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 respectively. Accused petitioners 2 and 3 namely Dr. Harish Manchanda and Arjun Lal Chandani are the two partners of the said firm and out of these the petitioners, petitioner No. 3 is the responsible person on behalf of the petitioner No. 1-manufacturing company. The Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, on behalf of the State of Haryana, filed the criminal complaint under Section 29(3) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 and the rules made thereunder for violation of the various provisions of the Insecticide Act, against the accused petitioners (manufacturer and its partners) and also against the dealer M/s Surinder Pal and Company and its proprietor Surinder Pal. The said complaint is dated 17.8.1992, copy Annexure P2. On the same day the accused were ordered to be summoned by the learned CJM, Sirsa. Accused petitioners filed the present petition dated 3.10.1996, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint, summoning order and all subsequent proceeding taken thereon. Inter alia, it was alleged that as per the complaint, the sample was drawn on 29.8.1991 and the manufacturing date of the insecticide was July, 1991 and the expiry date was June, 1992, whereas complaint was filed on 17.8.1992 and by that time the shelf life of the insecticide had already expired and there was no time with the accused petitioners to get the sample re-analysed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory, as provided under Section 24(4) of the Insecticide Act. It was alleged that in this manner, the petitioners were deprived of exercising their right of getting the sample re-analysed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory. It was further alleged that in the complaint it had not been specifically alleged that petitioners 2 and 3 were "incharge of the business of the petitioner No. 1 and were responsible for the business of the petitioner No. 1". It was alleged that on this ground as well, the complaint is required to be quashed. In the written statement filed by Rohitash Kumar, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Dabwali, on behalf of the State of Haryana, it was admitted that the insecticide was manufactured in July, 1991 and its shelf life was upto June, 1992 and that the sample was drawn on 28.8.1991. It was alleged that as per report of the State Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal dated 13.9.1991, the sample was found to be mis-branded. It was further alleged that a copy of the said report was sent to the dealer on 19.9.1991 and that the dealer applied to the court of CJM, Sirsa on 17.2.1991. The said court sent the second portion of the sample for re-analysis by the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Hyderabad under Section 24(4) of the Insecticide Act. It was alleged that the Central Insecticide Laboratory sent the analysis report to the Court of CJM, Sirsa and the said court had sent a copy thereof to the applicant dealer M/s Surinder Pal and Company. It was alleged that even the Central Insecticide Laboratory, vide its report Annexure R1, also found the sample to be mis-branded. It was alleged that there was a relationship of principal and agent between the petitioners, being the manufacturer and M/s Surinder Pal and Company, being the dealer. It was alleged that the dealer/agent getting the sample re-analysed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory and the accused petitioners being the manufacturer/principal were bound by the said report of the Central Insecticide Laboratory. It was alleged that on this ground the filing of the criminal complaint after the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide would be of no consequence. It was further alleged that even otherwise under the Insecticide Act, the analysis report has to be supplied only to the dealer from whom sample was drawn and not to the manufacturer. It was further alleged that in the criminal complaint, it was alleged that present petitioners were manufacturers of the insecticide which was found to be mis- branded and they were incharge of the manufacturing concern and liable for prosecution.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.;