HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU,J - (1.) THE petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the complaint (Annexure P-1) pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom be quashed, being abuse of the process of the Court.
(2.) THE brief resume of the facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that on 10.10.1990 Gurmej Singh, Insecticide Inspector inspected the premises of M/s. Malwa Pesticides Seeds Store Rama and took a sample of Malathion 50% E.C. in the presence of Bikkar Singh. At the time of taking of sample three packings of 250 mls. of batch No. DF 02 were purchased. Date of manufacture was June 1990 and Date of expiry was May, 1991. This Insecticide was manufactured by M/s. Jai Chemicals, Mathura Road, Faridabad. One sealed packet was handed over to Rakesh Kumar of M/s. Malwa Pesticide and Seed Store Rama and the other two samples were deposited in the office of the Chief Agricultural Officer, Bathinda. The sealed samples were sent later on to the Director (RL) Officer Incharge, 92 Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh. The Test Report was received in the office on 7th January, 1991 according to which the sample of Insecticide Malathion 50% E.C. was not found according to I.S.I. Specification on account of acidity. A registered notice was sent to the defaulting firm along with a copy of the Test Report and so also a Registered Notice was sent to the manufacturer, by Chief Agricultural Officer, Bathinda on 22.1.1991. Since the dealer was selling insecticide which was sub- standard, a complaint was filed in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda against the dealer as well as against the manufacturer. The petitioners assailed the complaint on the grounds that there was no allegation nor any material to show that they were incharge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. Only those who were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company could be liable. Sanction for prosecution Annexure P-5 was non est as it was not validly issued. The sanctioning authority did not apply his mind before granting it. It was on a cyclostyled form with the blanks filled in. There was also delay in filing the complaint. The petitioners learnt about the complaint only in August 1992 while the date of expiry of the sample was May, 1991. They were thus deprived of their valuable right under Section 24 of the Act to get the sample re-analysed from Central Insecticides Laboratory.
(3.) IN the return filed by the respondents, it was maintained that petitioner No. 2 was the Production Manager of M/s. Jai Chemicals, manufacturer of substandard insecticide and incharge of the firm, so was liable to be prosecuted. The petitioner company was duly supplied a copy of the analysis report along with the show-cause notice dated 22.1.1991 in which it was specifically pointed out that sample of insecticide was found sub- standard as percentage of its active ingredients was found 48.70 instead of 50 per cent. It was admitted that the complaint was filed in court on 15.10.1991 but this fact was denied that the petitioner learnt about the institution of the complaint after long delay. Regarding sanction it was pleaded that the same was granted by the competent authority after applying his mind and after completing all the formalities. It was further averred that the petitioner was in no way deprived of his right under Section 24(4) of the Act as the sample had already been analysed by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and they were afforded full opportunity to get the sample retested from the Laboratory.;