V.K.JHANJI, J. - (1.) THE present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who at the relevant time was working as Insecticides Inspector, Nabha, Distt. Patiala, and presently working as Agriculture Development Officer, Bhadson, Teh. Nabha, Distt. Patiala, for expunging the remarks made against him in order dated 2.6.1993 in case "State v. Nahar Singh etc." passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha.
(2.) IN the year 1987, petitioner was posted as Insecticides Inspector, Nabha, District Patiala. On 22.12.1987, petitioner along with Daljit Singh, Inspector, inspected the premises of M/s Sharma Pesticides and Fertilizer, Bouran Gate, Nabha and took sample of Pestolon-50 (ISO Proturon 50% WP) weedicide manufactured by M/s Pesto Chemicals India, Delhi, in the presence of the representative of the firm. According to the petitioner, out of three sealed packages in which sample of Pestolon was drawn, one package was handed over to the representative of the firm one such package was sent to the Department of Agriculture, Punjab, Insecticide Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana, after getting it entered in the register of Chief Agricultural Officer, Patiala, and the third sample was deposited with Chief Agricultural Officer, Patiala, as receipt of sample. On analysis, the same was found to be misbranded and accordingly, complaint was filed by the petitioner against the dealer and the manufacturer. Manufacturer preferred a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. which was allowed and proceedings against the manufacturer were quashed. Complaint proceeded against the dealer, and the trial Court found sufficient ground to proceed against Nahar Singh and Dinesh Kumar. There were charged accordingly. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. Dinesh Kumar and Nahar Singh preferred petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint and the charge. This court vide order dated 8.1.1993 quashed the complaint against Dinesh Kumar, but as regards Nahar Singh, petition for quashing was dismissed. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha, vide his judgment/order dated 2.6.1993 acquitted the accused, Nahar Singh but in the concluding paragraph, gave following remarks against the petitioner: "In all these circumstances, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offence under section 29 of the Act. Before parting with this judgment I will like to comment upon, the work and conduct of the complainant. He was supposed to be aware of all the mandatory provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder. He failed to follow the mandatory procedure which has resulted in financial loss to the State Govt. and that gives poor pictures of the officers, who are entrusted with the responsible jobs and who are entrusted with the work of taking samples so as to ensure the supply of genuine pesticide and insecticides to the ignorant farmers, who have little knowledge about the same. The acts and omissions of the complainant have not only resulted in financial loss to the State but has also wasted the precious time of this court. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Director, Agriculture Pb. for taking suitable action against him. File be consigned to the record room." The remarks recorded by the Judicial Magistrate against the petitioner are sought to be expunged on the ground that the same were wholly unwarranted and cancelled for. Accordingly to the counsel, before recording adverse remarks against the petitioner, the trial Court was required to satisfy itself that there was sufficient evidence on record justifying the remarks and also that the remarks were necessary for the decision of the case as an integral part thereof. Having gone through the order in which remarks against the petitioner were recorded, I find that the contention of counsel for the petitioner is well-founded. The learned trial Magistrate in para 13 of the order has stated that petitioner has not brought on record any notification from which it can be inferred that Senior Analyst Testing Lab. Department of Agriculture, Pb. P.A.U. Campus, Ludhiana, who analysed the sample, was appointed as Insecticides Analyst within the meaning of that section. It has further been mentioned therein that the Insecticide Inspector has failed to follow the mandatory procedure as laid down in the Act because he has failed to intimate the person from whom the sample was taken, in writing that the same was required for the purposes of test or analysis. There may be some lapse on the part of the complainant in not producing the notification on record, but that by itself is not sufficient to conclude that the mistake on the part of the complainant (petitioner) was intentional or deliberate. From a reading of the impugned judgment, it is not clear as to whether any objection was taken by the accused that he was not informed about the purpose of taking of the sample. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the present case is one of those exceptional cases where inherent jurisdiction of the Court is required to be exercised and the remarks, referred to above, against the petitioner, deserve to be expunged.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , I allow this petition and as a result thereof, direct that remarks recorded against the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate in his judgment dated 2.6.1993 in case "State v. Nahar Singh" shall stand expunged. Petition allowed.;