HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU, J. - (1.) BIRBAL petitioner who is the sole proprietor of M/s. Punjab Pesticides, Nihalsinghwala, tehsil Moga and is a licence holder for sale of various types of insecticides, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint Annexure P-1 and consequent proceedings pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga, under Section 3(k)(i), Sections 17, 18, 20 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (The Act of brevity) read with Section 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this petition as given in the complaint Annexure P-1 are that on 26.7.1988 Shri Baljinder Singh Insecticides Inspector, Nihalsinghwala, inspected the premises of the petitioner and took sample of Domesthoate 30% E.C. in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act. The sample was drawn from one-half litre originally packed tins, duly labelled by M/s. New Chemical Industries Private Limited, Bombay, with Batch No. NCL/9, in three dry, neat and clean plastic bottles. The samples were sealed and one sealed sample was sent to the Insecticides Test Laboratory, Ludhiana. The expert ananlysing the sample declared it misbranded with the remarks that the sample did not conform to I.S.I. specifications with respect to its percentage of active ingredients contents. Thus, the complaint was filed against the petitioner as well as against M/s. New Chemical Industries Private Limited, Bombay, manufacturers and K/s. Kanshi Ram Mehar Chand, Moga, through its partners who were the distributors. The petitioner assailed the complaint on various grounds but at the time of arguments the learned Counsel for the petitioner confined himself to the grounds mentioned in paras No. 6 and 8 of the petition. It was contended that the officer authorised under Section 31(1) of the Act, who gave consent for launching the prosecution, had authorised the Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot, to file and peruse the complaint personally but the Chief Agricultural Officer had not filed the complaint Annexure P-1 and rather the same was filed by the Insecticides Inspector. The consent for filing the complaint was given in a routine manner without applying mind. The petitioner was also entitled to the protection of Sub Section (3) of Section 30 of the Act as he was only a license for the purpose of selling Insecticides and he had sold the insecticides in the same form and condition in which he received it from the manufacturer. He acquired the insecticides from duly licensed distributor and manufacture, and he was unable to know with reasonable diligence that the insecticides, in any way, contravened the provisions of the Act.
(3.) IN the return filed by the respondent it was maintained that the complaint was filed by a duly authorised person and sanction for prosecution was given by the sanctioning authority after due application of mind. It was further averred that in order to seek protection under sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Act it was obligatory to prove the three preconditions mentioned therein and a dealer could not seek protection for contravention of the provisions of the Act.;