HARBANS LAL,J - (1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Mr. B.S. Rana for quashing the complaint No. 271 of 2005 (Annexure P-10) titled State v. M/s Suraj Kheti Store, Ajnala and others pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala, District Amritsar, under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33 of The Insecticides Act, 1968 (for brevity 'the Act') and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 29th October, 2003, Baljinder Singh Sandhu, Insecticide Inspector Chogawan, District Amritsar inspected the premises of M/s Suraj Kheti Store, Ajnala Road, Chogawan, District Amritsar and drew the sample of Glyphostate 41% S.L. having its manufacturing date June, 2003 and expiry date May, 2005. The sample was divided into three parts, one part was sent for its analysis to the Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh. After its analysis, the sample was found misbranded on 18th November, 2004. On receipt of analysis report, a show cause notice was served to the petitioner. After the receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner company filed a detailed reply thereto, stating therein that in the present case, the sample was tested after more than 365 days, which is a violation of the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act. Another show case notice/personal hearing dated 4th May, 2005 and 17th March, 2005 was served to the petitioner. Reply was filed thereto stating therein that the sample was tested after the period of 30 days, which is violation of the above-mentioned Section. Secondly, the details of the test report i.e. Chromatic Chart of the failure of the sample was not supplied to the petitioner in compliance with the letter issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi. Instead of sending the aforesaid chart to the petitioner company by the Department of Agriculture, the present complaint dated 11th May, 2005 was filed in the aforementioned Court, which summoned the petitioner for 12th July, 2005. The shelf life of the sample had already expired, with the result, the petitioner has lost his fundamental right to get the refer sample re-analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad, Sequelly, the complaint as well as subsequent proceedings arising there from are liable to be quashed. In reply filed by way of Affidavit of Baljinder Singh Sandhu, Insecticide Inspector, Chogawan, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar on behalf of the State it has been denied that the sample was tested after more than 305 days. The simple was sent to the laboratory in the company's pack of 250 ML in the same state in which it was taken and there was no tampering from the side of answering respondent or anyone else who handled the sample. The sample was sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad and report of it is the conclusive proof. The provisions of Section 24(1) and other parts of it, is applicable, when the sample is tested by the laboratory other than Central Insecticide Laboratory as per Section 24(3) of the Act. As the sample was tested by the Regional Testing Laboratory of Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad the remedy under Section 24(3) and (4) of the Act is not available to the petitioner and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as the expiry of the sample was May, 2005. The notice dated 4th March, 2005 and 17th March, 2005 were served on the petitioner as he did not appear in time in response to the show cause notice dated 14th February, 2005 to explain the position with regard to the misbranding of the sample in question and the report of the Director, Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad. The reply dated 29th March, 2005 of the petitioner was received after the prescribed period. Moreover, the right to get the second sample tested from the Central Insecticide Laboratory is not available to the petitioner on the ground that the sample had already been tested by the said laboratory through the Regional insecticide Laboratory. No Chromatic chart of the sample was supplied by the aforesaid laboratory alongwith the report as it is not required to be supplied as per the provisions of the Act. The letter of the Secretary, Agriculture, and Government of India is not mandatory and in these circumstances this petition may be dismissed.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.;