- (1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the criminal complaint No.233 dated 16.12.2008 under Section 3 (k) (i), 17, 18, 33 and 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 ('Act' for short) and Rules, 1971 (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure P-3).
(2.) The contents of the complaint (Annexure P-1) reads as under:- "1. That I, Dr. Pakhar Singh, Insecticides Inspector, Muktsar have been notified as Insecticides Inspector vide the Notification No.SU90CA45/68S/20/91 October 1991 under Section 20 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. 2. That I was appointed as Farming Officer vide Letter No. 16634-44/2492/18A-1 (2) Chandigarh Dated 22.08.88 of the Director Farming, Punjab. 3. That M/s Deep Pesticides, Shop No.33-A, New Dana Mandi, Muktsar is a Dealer of Insecticides and it is been issued the License No. 97/199 for insecticides from Chief Dealer Officer, Muktsar (Licensing Authority) and it is dealing in sale of Insecticides. 4. That on 02.09.2005, I and Dr. Arjun Singh, Block Officer, Muktsar went to the above said shop for the checking of Insecticides, where Sh. Vijay Kumar (Owner) was present at the spot at that time, who is responsible for selling insecticides as prescribed in Section 23 of the Insecticides Act and or maintaining the records for the same and I told him about our inspection. 5. That I expressed him my desire for collecting 4% sample of Cartap Hydrochloride. Before starting the proceedings for collecting the sample, I tried to include some independent witnesses, but there were o witnesses and due to this reason, I included Dr. Arjun Singh, Block Officer, Muktsar as witness in the proceeding and checked the Stock Register of the above said Firm and at that time, there was 90 Kilograms Cartap Hydrochloride Insecticide was mentioned in the Stock Register. 6. That further I checked the insecticides manufactured by M/s Agrimass Chemicals Ltd, whose Batch No.0506098 Date of manufacturing the insecticide January, 2005 and the date of its expiry was May, 2007. The 5 Kg. packing of the said insecticides, the marking of Agritop was printed over the same. I started collecting sample from the above said marked 5 Kg. packet. Therefore, I opened the said 5 Kg. packet of the said insecticide and took out 750 grams each in three packets, which were neat and clean packets and also took the bill for amount of the same, the copy of the said bill is annexed with the present Complaint. 7. That I prepared 6 copies of Form No.21 and 4 copies of Form No.20. At that time Sh. Devinder Kumar (Owner) was present at the above said shop, who took 4 copies of Form No.20 and put the seal of his firm and his signatures over the same. Dr. Arjun Singh, Block Officer, Muktsar also put his signatures over the said Forms as a witness. 8. That 3 different samples were taken out from the above said 3 poly bags and the mouth of the said bags were properly closed with a thread. Before this, the said 3 poly bags were kept in three different poly bags and the mouth of the said bags were separately closed properly with a thread. Thereafter, the said three poly bags were kept in three different-different cloth bags and one-one Form No.21 completely filled was also pot in each of the said cloth bags and the mouth of all the three cloth bags were closed with the thread and thereafter, I sealed the said cloth bags with my official seal of "Agri Department-2, Muktsar". One sealed part of the said samples and one Form No.20 completely filled was handed over to Sh. Vijay Kumar (Owner) at the spot itself and brought the balance two samples to the officer of the Chief Farming Officer, Muktsar. 9. That on 05-09-2005, vide Letter No. 358, Dr. Pakhar Singh, A.D.O., Muktsar deposited the above said samples with Dr. Kabal Singh, A.D.O., Muktsar in the office of Chief Farming Officer, Muktsar. 10. That Dr. Kabal Singh, A.D.O., Muktsar sent the above said samples to the Insecticides Laboratory, Ludhiana through Sh. Nahar Singh, Beldar vide Letter No. 26 Dated 06-09-2005 of the office of Chief Farming Officer, Muktsar. Copy of the receipt is attached with the present Complaint. 11. That after testing the above said samples, the above said laboratory sent the test report of the samples that the samples are not in accordance with the MIAR I.M.I. Specifications and therefore, it is mis-branded and the report of the sample has come 2.15% G instead of 4% G and therefore, after this the Chief Farming Officer, Muktsar sent the Show Cause Notices to the Dealer and Manufacturer alongwith one-one copy of the test reports, because the sample of the accused persons was mis-branded as prescribed in Section 3 (K) (1) of the Act. 12. That the Dealer in his reply to the said Show Cause Notice, requested for the re-testing of the samples of the above said mis-branded samples of the insecticides under Section 24 (4) of the Insecticides Act and therefore, as per Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act the samples were sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad vide Letter No.40 Dated 16-11- 2005 through Sh. Narinder Kumar, Beldar, Muktsar for its re-testing. According to the report, the above said sample was fount incorrect according to the MIAR I.M.I Specifications and therefore, it was found mis-branded, because it was found 3.63% G instead of 4% G and hence, the same was declared as mis-branded as per Section 3 (k) (1). 13. That till the time, the above said sample of the Insecticides was kept in the office of Plant Security Officer, Muktsar and the office of the Farming Officer, Muktsar, till that time no office/employee have made any changes to it. 14. That M/s Agrimass Chemicals Ltd. (Manufactur) has taken the permission of selling insecticides from the Director of Farming, Punjab, Chandigarh vide his Letter No.2289/A.D.A. Dated 26-04-2005. 15. That on behalf of M/s Agrimass Chemicals Ltd., New Delhi, Sh. Lakham Chaudhary (Authorized Officer for Quality Control), Sh. Onkar Punjani, S/o Sh. P.M. Punjani (Authorized Representative for Conduct of Business), Sh. Manoj Dua, S/o Sh. Lal Chand (Godown Incharge) and Anand Fredrick, M.D. tendered their respective testimonies. 16. That the manufacturer by keeping the stock of such insecticides and by selling the same has violated Section 3 (k) (1), 17, 18, 29 & 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Dealer has also violated Section 3(k) (1), 18 & 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 by stocking the above said insecticides and by selling the same. 17. That the written permission for initiating the legal action against the accused persons has already been taken from the Director Farming Plant Security, Punjab, Chandigarh vide Letter No.815-17 Dt.23-02-07 under Section 31 (1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The original copy of the written permission is attached with the present complaint. 18. That the above said Cartap Hydrochloride 4% G is a scheduled insecticide as prescribed in the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the same is manufactured by M/s Agrimass Chemicals Ltd, New Delhi and the same is registered by the Insecticide Board of India. 19. That the shop of the accused dealer is situated at New Dana Mandi, where he is carrying on the business of stocking and selling of the insecticides and therefore, the same is well within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and hence, this Hon'ble Court is having jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. 20. That by filing the present complaint, it is prayed that strict legal action shall be taken against the accused persons under Section 3 (k) (1), 17, 18, 29 & 33 of the Insecticides Act. 21. That Dr. Pakhar Singh, Insecticides Inspector, Muktsar remains busy in his official and departmental duties and works and therefore, he cannot remain present on each and every date and therefore, instead of me, the Additional Public Prosecutor of this Hon'ble Court may be allowed to contest the present case on my behalf and my personal appearance shall be exempted."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not responsible for quality control. Petitioner was the Director of the company and had resigned with effect from 28.6.2005 whereas the sample was drawn on 2.9.2005. Learned state counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner was the responsible person and official of the company and hence, he was liable to be prosecuted. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- "The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.";