NIRMAL YADAV, J. - (1.) PETITIONER is the proprietor of firm M/s Sharma Seeds Store, Sahnewal, District Ludhiana and dealing in the sale of insecticides and pesticides. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by him for quashing of complaint Annexure P/5 filed by the Insecticide Inspector, Sahnewal and the subsequent proceedings taken thereon pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana.
(2.) ON 24.7.1992 the premises of M/s Sharma Seeds Store, Grain Market, Sahnewal, was checked by the Insecticide Inspector. He took sample of 'Phosphomidon' 85% SL manufactured by M/s Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad. Its manufacturing date was June, 1992 and the date of expiry was November, 1993. One sample was sent for chemical analysis. As per report Annexure P/2 the sample did not conform to the relevant IS specification in active ingredients test requirement and was found to be misbranded. Petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 3.11.1992, Annexure P/3. Along with the show cause notice, copy of the test report of the sample was also enclosed. Petitioner submitted reply, Annexure P/4, within 28 days of the receipt of the copy of the test report and also desired that another sample with the petitioner may be sent for reanalysis to the Central Drugs Laboratory at his expenses. As such the petitioner complied with the requirement as per the provisions of Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. In pursuance of the complaint, petitioner has been summoned by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, vide order dated 17.11.1993, Annexure P/6. Petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint as well as subsequent proceedings mainly on the ground that he was summoned when the shelf life of the sample had already expired. He was, therefore, deprived of his valuable right of getting the sample re-analysed from the Central Drugs Laboratory. He had earlier informed the Insecticide Inspector that the report of the Senior Analyst was not acceptable to him and he wished to get another sample re- analysed. In support of his contention the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments reported as State of Haryana v. Unique Faarmaid P. Ltd., 1999(4) RCR(Criminal) 540; Bayer India Ltd. v. State of Punjab, 2002(4) RCR(Criminal) 50; M/s Hindustan Pulverising Mills v. State of Haryana, 2002(4) RCR(Criminal) 555 and M/s Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of Rajasthan and another, 2002(4) RCR(Criminal) 763. Learned State counsel, however, argued that all these points may be raised by the petitioner at the appropriate stage of the proceedings and even accepting the factual position as stated to be correct, no case for quashing of the complaint in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is made out.
(3.) AT the outset, certain provisions of the Act, which are relevant for the purposes of the present proceedings, may be reproduced hereunder : "3. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires - (k) 'misbranded' - An insecticide shall be deemed to be misbranded : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... (viii) if the insecticide has a toxicity which is higher than the level prescribed or is mixed or packed with any substance so as to alter its nature or quality or contains any substances which is not included in the registration." " 24. Report of Insecticide Analyst - (1) ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... (2) The Insecticide Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and shall retain the other copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the sample. (3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by an Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein, and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken has within twenty eight days of the receipt of a copy of the report notified in writing the Insecticide Inspector or the Court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. (4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticide Laboratory, where a person has under sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of the Insecticide Analyst report, the Court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or of the accused, cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the Magistrate under sub- section (6) of Section 22 to be sent for test or analysis to the laboratory, which shall make the test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or under the authority of the Director of the Central Insecticides Laboratory the result thereof, and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. (5) ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]..." ;