Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner which is a Unit of Puri Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has sought quashing of complaint under Sections 3 (k), 17, 18 and 33 of the insecticides Act, 1968 read with rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 and subsequent proceedings.
(2.) THE brief facts out of which the present petition has arisen are that Satwant Singh Insecticides Inspector inspected the shop of Madan Trading Corporation on 29.8.1985 and purchased 3 tins of 500 ml. each of Insecticides Monokiss (Monocrotophos 36%) manufactured by the petitioner. Three separate samples were prepared and sealed. One sealed sample was handed over to the dealer (Madan Lal) along with declaration form No. XII. The other sample was deposited in the office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Bathinda, whereas the third sample was sent to Senior Analyst Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana who reported that the active ingredient was only 22.697% against 36% and therefore, the sample is misbranded. Notice of the report was given to the dealer vide registered letter dated 8.10.1995. Subsequently, the present complaint had been filed. Since the dealer has not exercised any option to get the sample re - analysed, the Joint Director Agriculture, exercising the powers under Section 31 of the Act, granted sanction for institution of proceedings against Madan Trading Corporation, Bathinda and its partners Madan Lal and Ajay Kumar, vide order dated 28.7.1994, Annexure P4. On the basis of such Sanction, complaint, Annexure P.1 was instituted not only against Madan Trading Corporation through its partners Madan Lal and Ajay Kumar but also against the petitioners through its Directors.
(3.) THE petitioner has sought quashing of the complaint inter alia on the ground that there was no Sanction by the State Government under Section 31 of the Act, in respect of manufacturer and its Directors. Therefore, a complaint against such manufacturers is an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner has also sought quashing of complaint on the ground that filing of complaint after the expiry of shelf -life defeats the valuable right granted to the manufacturer to seek re -analysis and on the ground that there is no allegation in the complaint that the petitioners were incharge or responsible to the company for the conduct of its business.;