- (1.) M/s. Harwinder Paul Singh Kuldip Singh and others have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint Annexure P-1 with all consequential proceedings pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gidderbaha.
(2.) The case set up by the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm and petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 are its partners. A sample of Monocrotophos manufactured by M/s. Kishan Chemicals, Chandigarh was taken by the Insecticide Inspector on 22.8.1989 from 250 ml. packing. It was sent to the Insecticide Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana and was declared not in conformity with the relevant ISI specifications in the active ingredients. Resultantly, on the basis of the report, Insecticide Inspector filed a complaint under Section 3 k (i), 17, 18 and 29 read with Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 against the petitioners. It is alleged by the petitioners that the sample was taken from a closed packed and the petitioners are only dealers. They could neither know nor could with reasonable diligence have ascertained that the insecticide is misbranded. Therefore, they cannot be held responsible for the criminal liability and the liability if any is of the manufacturer or the stockist.
(3.) The petitioners, are raising the plea of fact which can only be proved by leading evidence. There is no averment in the complaint that the sample was in a sealed container. In these circumstances, the petitioners should have approached to the learned Magistrate, who has summoned the petitioners, by making a proper application that the complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of law or that the summoning order requires to be recalled. The petitioners are yet to prove that the insecticide was purchased from a duly licensed manufacturer. When a matter requires evidence, the High Court will not hold upon an enquiry on its own level under Section 482 Cr.P.C.;