Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Distributors (petitioner Nos. 1 to 4) and Manufacturers (petitioner Nos. 5 to 8) with the prayer that the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 524/92 State v. Amit Pesticides and Fertilizer for the offence under sections 17(1) & 18 r/w 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1968') pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar be quashed.
(2.) It may be stated here that dealer M/s. Amit Pesticides and Fertilizer is not party before this Court.
(3.) It arises in the following circumstances:- On 14.9.1992, a complaint was filed by B.D. Sharma, Insecticide Inspector in the office of Assistant Director, Agriculture, Sri Ganganagar in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar against the present petitioners, who are Distributors as well as Manufacturers and apart from them, against M /s. Amit Pesticides and Fertilizer and its proprietor Suresh Kumar, who were dealers of the insecticides in question. It was stated in the complaint that on 24.10.1991 Insecticide Inspector, Sri Ganganagar took sample of the insecticide B.H.C. 10% dust, Gamma Isomer 1.3% from M/s. Amit Pesticides and Fertilizer, Sri Ganganagar, who was dealer and prepared fard and divided the sample into three parts as required by the law. One of the samples was sent for analysis to the Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner and the Insecticide Analyst, Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner gave his report on 23.12.1991, in which it was reported that the sample did not confirm to I.S. specification No. 561/1978 in the active ingredient and hence, it was misbranded. It was also stated in the report that batch number of the insecticide package was 48 and date of manufacturing was September 1991 and date of expiry was August 1993. When the sample was not found in accordance with the prescribed standard, a notice dated 31.12.1991 was given by the Insecticide Inspector, Sri Ganganagar to the dealer M/s. Amit Pesticides and Fertilizer, Sri Ganganagar, from whom, sample was taken. Vide letter dated 17.1.1992, Suresh Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Amit Pesticides and Fertilizer, Sri Ganganagar gave reply to the Insecticide Inspector, Sri Ganganagar stating therein that they have purchased the article in question from the Distributor M/s. Nagpal Agro System Pvt. Ltd., Sri Ganganagar. They have also stated that the article, which was taken from them, was a correct one and it was wrongly tested and they made a prayer that the sample may be re-examined or re-tested. In consequence, a notice was also sent by the Insecticide Inspector to the Distributor M/s. Nagpal Agro System Pvt. Ltd., Sri Ganganagar on 9.1.1992 informing them also that the sample, which was taken from the dealer M/s. Amit Pesticide and Fertilizer, Sri Ganganagar was found misbranded. Through letter dated 15.1.1992, a reply was given by M/ s. Nagpal Agro System Pvt. Ltd. to the Insecticide Inspector that the article in question was standard one and they also enquired from the manufacturer and they informed that article in question was perfectly right one and, therefore, it was prayed that the sample may be re-tested or re-examined. Similarly, a notice to the manufacturer M/s. Unikil Pesticides (P) Ltd., Vidisha (MP) was also given by the Insecticide Inspector, Sri Ganganagar on 21.1.1992 informing that the sample of the article in question manufactured by them was found misbranded. A reply to this notice was given by M/s. Unikil Pesticides (P) Ltd. to the Insecticide Inspector on 23.1.1992, in which it was stated that the article in question was manufactured in their factory and it was perfectly as per the norms prescribed under the law and, therefore, they also made a prayer that the sample may be re-tested or re-examined. On this complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 15.4.1992 took cognizance against all the persons mentioned in the complaint for the offence under sections 17(1) & 18 r/w Section 29(1) of the Act of 1968. During the proceedings, it appears that so far as the distributors are concerned, they were served in the year 1997 and for the first time they appeared on 6.12.1997 and manufacturers have not been served so far.;