RAJENDRA SAXENA, J. - (1.) IN the aforementioned petitions filed under Section 482 Cr. PC. common points of law arise as such those are being disposed of by this common order.Now briefly the relevant facts: (A) Petition No. 865/94
(2.) M /s. Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. petitioner No. 1 is private limited company engaged in manufacturing insecticides and pesticides. B.L. Gupta (petitioner No: 2) is its Managing Director whereas P.N. Gupta and J.K. Gupta (petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 respectively) are its Directors and P.K. Gupta (petitioner No.5) is its Dy. General Manager Quality Control as also the notified person under Section 33 (1) the Insecticide Act. 1968 (in short 'the Act') responsible to the conduct of business of the petitioner company.
(3.) ON 17.3.1993 Radhey Shyam Insecticides Inspector, Jaipur took samples of four products including that of Methyl Parathion 2% D.P. from the premises four products including that of Methyl Parathion 2% D.P. from the premises of petitioner company. Samples of each insecticides were divided into three parts. Two parts were retained by the Inspector and third part was handed over to petitioner No.4. On 18/3/1993, the said inspector sent the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory Faridabad (C.I.L.) sample of other three products were found according to ISI specifications. However, the Senior Scientific officer (Chem) C.I.L. vide his report dated 13.5.1993 opined that the sample of methyl parathion 2% DP did not conform to the relevant I.S.I. specification in its active ingredient content requirement and as such the same was deemed to be misbranded under Section 3 (k) of the Act. It may be mentioned here that sample of methyl parathion, which was taken by the said inspector, was manufactured in November, 1992 and its shelf life was to expire in April, 1994. On receipt of the report of the C.I.L., the insecticides inspector issued a show cause notice dated 1.6.1993 to petitioner company. Thereupon the petitioner company vide its letter dated 14.6.1993 requested the insecticides inspector to produce sample of insecticide before the learned Magistrate under Section 22 (6) of the Act for being sent for test or analysis to the C.I.L. different from one in which it was analysed. The petitioner company also filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.12, Jaipur City under Section 24(3) of the Act praying that the sample be sent to other C.I.L. for re analysis, which was rejected vide order dated 1993. On 15.1.1994 Jt. Director Agriculture (Plant Protection) Rajasthan Jaipur accorded sanction for prosecution against all the petitioners under Section 29(1) (a) of the Act. On 22.2.1994, the Insecticides Inspector submitted criminal complaint under Section 29 (1) (a) of the Pesticides Act, 1968 (which in fact should have been the Insecticides Act, 1968) In the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.12, Jaipur city and on the same day the learned Magistrate took cognizance against all the petitioners and issued summons directing them to appear before him on 25.4.1994. However, the petitioners after service of summons appeared before him sometime in October, 1994. (B) Facts of Cr. Misc. Petition No.687/95.;