V.K.JHANJI,J. - (1.) THIS will dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 12594-M of 1993 M/s. National Farm Chemicals v. State of Haryana.
(2.) THIS petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of complaint, Annexure P-1 under Section 29(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules made thereunder for violating the provisions of Section 3(k)(i) of the Act, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the Insecticides Inspector, Hissar, inspected the premises of M/s Ram Sarup Tuli Ram (Dealer) Hissar, on 23.3.1988 and took sample of Monocrotophos 36% manufactured by the petitioner firm. The sample was sent for analysis to the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Lab., Karnal and contents of the Monocrotophos were found to be 34.1% as against the prescribed limit of 36% and the sample was declared misbranded. On the basis of the analysis report, complaint under Section 29(3) read with Section 3(k)(i) of the Act has been filed against M/s. Ram Sarup Tuli Ram, Hissar (Dealer) and M/s. National Farm Chemicals, Secunderabad (Manufacturer). The complaint has been sought to be quashed inter alia on the following grounds :- (i) that the analysis report was supplied only to the dealer and no such copy was supplied to the petitioner firm. No intimation was ever sent to the petitioner firm that the sample of Monocrotophos manufactured by the petitioner firm was found misbranded; (ii) that the sample was taken from the dealer's shop on 23.3.1988 but the petitioner firm has come to know only when the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar, summoned the petitioner on 22.2.1992. This has resulted in manifest injustice to the petitioner as the manufacturing date of the insecticide was August, 1988 and its expiry date was July, 1989 and by the time the petitioner firm was summoned in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 22.2.1992, the shelf life of the product had already expired and there was hardly any time for the petitioner firm to get the second sample re-analysed from the Central Insecticide Lab. as required under Section 24 of the Act; (iii) that the sample was not taken in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act and Rules and according to the ISI specifications. In the present case, the sample was sent in the glass bottles whereas according to ISI specifications, the sample of Monocrotophos has to be taken in mild steel containers. Thus, the procedure was defective being contrary to the ISI specifications; (iv) that no valid sanction has been granted for prosecuting the petitioner firm.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the complaint, Annexure P.1 is liable to be quashed on the aforesaid grounds. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the case of M/s. Dwarka Dass Sham Lal v. State of Punjab, 1993(3) Recent Criminal Reports 583.;