HARMOHINDER KAUR, SANDHU, J. - (1.) M /s. Jot Ram Dharam Chand Tappa are dealers in pesticide under a licence which was issued by Chief Agricultural Officer, Sangrur. On 26th August, 1987 Mehar Singh Insecticide inspector visited the premises of the dealer and took sample of Fenvalrate 20% E. C. Batch No. 101 according to the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (the Act for short). Three original containers of Batch No. 101 were taken and were put in three polythene packets alongwith seizure memo and each sample was sealed with seal No. 4. One sealed sample was handed over to Hukam Chand partner of the firm. Another sealed packet was sent to Central Insecticides Testing Laboratory. Faridabad. The Senior Scientific Officer, Faridabad declared that the sample of pesticide was misbranded as it contained low active ingredients than required in the container 20% F.C. and pesticide did not meet the label claim. On these averments Shri Mehar Singh Insecticide Inspector, Barnala filed a complaint against the dealer as well as the manufacturer of the pesticide for offences under Sections 17, 18, 31 and 33 of the Act. The dealer firm through its partners has now filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the complaint Annexure P-1 and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala.
(2.) IT was averred in the petition that the date of the manufacture of the pesticide was July 1987 and the date of expiry was June, 1989 but the complaint was filed on 8.2.1990 i.e. after the expiry of the sample. There thus no time left with the petitioner firm to send the sample for reanalysis as shelf life of the sample had expired. The petitioner was deprived of his right to controvert the report of the Central Insecticides Laboratory which vitiates the proceedings against the petitioner. It was further pleaded that the Insecticide Inspector instead of sending the sample to the Insecticide Analyst sent the same to the Central Insecticides Laboratory and thus the right to send the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory was not available to the petitioner. Before launchig prosecution it was necessary to obtain sanction from the higher audthority under Section 31 of the Act but in the present case no valid sanction was granted. The sanction was granted on a cyclostyled form and name of the licensee and the manufacturer were filled in. There was no mention of the contents of the report of the Analyst nor there was any mention of the specific provisions of the law under which the petitioner was sought to be prosecuted. The petitioner was protected under the provisions of Sub section 3 of Section 30 of the Act, as the pesticide was being sold in sealed containers and the seals on the containers were intact. After exercising due diligence, the petitioners could not have ascertained that the pesticide was in any way misbranded. The pesticide was stored in a proper form and had remained in the same State as when acquired from the licensed manufacturer i.e. Markfed Agro Chemicals, Mohali. In the return filed by respondent No. 1 this fact was admitted that date of manufacture of the pesticide was July 1987 and expiry date was June, 1989. The complaint was, however, filed on 8-2-1990. It was maintained that the Insecticide Inspector sent the same to Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad because there was no testing facility for Fenvalrate 20% in the State Insecticides Testing Laboratory and as the sample was already tested by Central Insecticides Laboratory the petitioner was not deprived of any right. The provisions of the Act, were fully complied with. It was further contended that the petitioner being dealer could not escape liability for the sample which was found misbranded simply on the ground that the pesticide was acquired from a licensed manufacturer in a sealed container.
(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused, the record.;