Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) The petitioners seek to quash the proceedings pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Deoli, under section 29(1)(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (in short the Act).
(2.) Brief resume of the facts is that on 24.8.1992 sample of Methyl Parathion 2% DP with Batch No. 92 D-36 was taken by the Agriculture Officer cum Insecticide Inspector Malpura, non-petitioner No. 2 from the shop of M/s. Mittal Khad Beej Bhandar, Deoli. The expiry date of sample was 30.1.1994. The State Analyst in his report dated 30.10.1992 for Batch No. 92B 36 found the sample as mis-branded. On 1.12.1992 the manufacturer was given show cause notice by the non-petitioner No. 2 regarding batch No. 92 8-36. In its reply dated 8.12.1992 the manufacturer categorically denied that Batch No. 92 B-36 was not manufactured by it. On the other hand the dealer i.e. M/s. Mittal Khad Beej Bhandar, Deoli in reply to show cause notice dated 1.12.1992 made its intention clear for getting the sample re-tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory but till date no action has been taken for retesting the sample. On 22.5.1995 the State Government gave consent to institute prosecution under section 31(1) of the Act and thereafter on 5.8.1995, the non-petitioner No. 2 instituted criminal complaint for offence under section 29(1)(a) of the Act against ten accused persons including the petitioners in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoli. On 1.4.1997 correct addresses of the accused were filed by the Public Prosecutor and on the said date the learned Magistrate issued process against the petitioners as well as other co-accused persons.
(3.) The contention of the petitioners is that the learned Magistrate committed grave error in issuing the process against the petitioners as no cognizance has been taken for any offences as yet.;