- (1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioners seeking the quashment of the criminal complaint under Section 3K (1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon.
(2.) In the petition, it was alleged that the sample was taken on 19.6.1997 and as per the report of the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana, the sample was not found according to ISI specifications. It was alleged that a copy of the report of the Analyst was sent to the petitioners on 21.7.1997 and on 3.8.1997, the petitioners sent detailed reply requesting the Insecticide Inspector to send the sample for re-analysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory at the expenses of the petitioners. It was alleged that thereupon the petitioners were asked to send the necessary expenses to the Chief Agricultural Officer, Sangrur, whereupon, the petitioners sent bank draft dated 4.9.1997 towards expenses for getting the sample retested and this fact was acknowledged by the Chief Agricultural Officer on 16.9.1997. It was alleged that surprisingly the sample was never sent for re-analysed and the present complaint was filed on 14.10.1998. It was alleged that as per the report of the Insecticide Analyst, the manufacturing date of the insecticide was May, 1996 and its expiry date was October, 1997. It was alleged that the complaint was filed on 14.10.1998, i.e. after the expiry of the shelf-life of the insecticide. It was alleged that the petitioners were ordered to be summoned for the first time for 14.12.1998 and by that time, the shelf-life of the insecticide had expired. It was alleged that the valuable right of the petitioner for getting the samples re-analysis from Central Insecticides Laboratory, had been denied to the petitioners, for no fault of theirs. Inter alia it was alleged that the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon were liable to be quashed on this ground alone.
(3.) In the written reply filed by Shri Surjit Bawa, Insecticide Inspector, Barnala, it was admitted that the sample was taken on 19.6.1997 and that the Analyst report was sent to the petitioners. It was also admitted that the petitioners had replied to the show cause notice and had requested for re- analysis of the sample whereupon, the petitioners were asked to send the required testing fee and other material required for sending the sample for re-analysis. It was admitted that the petitioners sent bank draft for testing charges only. It was alleged that the other material required for packing the sample was not supplied and for this reason, the sample could not be sent for re-analysis. It was admitted that the manufacturing date was May, 1996 and the expiry date was October, 1997 and the complaint was filed on 14.10.1998. It was alleged that the sample was not sent for re-analysis due to inaction on the part of the petitioners, as they had not supplied the required material for sending the sample for re-analysis. It was alleged that there was no fault on the part of the department.;