AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Nijjar, J.—This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the complaint under the Insecticide Act, 1968, Annexure P-1, summoning order Annexure P-2 and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Manager, Quality Control in Delta Insecticides Limited, Delhi. This company manufactures various kinds of insecticides and pesticides and is having valid licence in this regard. The company tests each and every lot of insecticides and pesticides before sale in the market. The petitioner worked in the above said company upto 31.12.1995. On 26.12.1995, he tendered his resignation which was accepted on 31.12.1995. Thereafter, he joined as Production Manager with Tropical Aggrosystem (India) Limited, New Delhi, with effect from 01.01.1996.
On 15.05.1996, Insecticide Inspector drew a sample of Insecticide as manufactured by Delta Insecticides Limited, Delhi, from the shop premises of one dealer of the manufacture i.e. M/s. Beni Pal and Company, Khanna, District Ludhiana. The date of manufacture of the insecticide was March, 1996, andtheexpiry date was February, 1997. One part of the sample was sent to the State Insecticide Testing laboratory, Ludhiana, for chemical examination and the same was found mis-branded after analysis. Show Cause Notice was issued to the manufacturing company, but no individual Show Cause Notice was served on the petitioner. The manufacturer sent the reply on 21.7.1996 which was within the statutory period. In this reply, it is clearly stated that the manufacturer wants to adduce evidence in contravention of the report of the Chemical Examiner. No reply was received to this letter written by the manufacturer. The complaint has been filed on 13.2.1997. The summoning order has been issued on 31.3.1997.
A perusal of the aforesaid facts would show that by the time summoning order had been issued, the expiry date of the insecticide had already expired. Consequently, valuable right of the petitioner u/s 24 of the Act ibid, has been prejudiced. In similar circumstances, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Unique FarmaidP. Lid. 1994(4) R.C.R. 540 has quashed the proceedings pending in the Court.
In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Complaint Annexure P-l, summoning 6rder Annexure P-2 and consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner, are hereby quashed. No costs.
Petition allowed-