Bahadur Singh and Another vs State of Punjab

K.S. Kumaran, J.—Criminal Misc. No. 5583M of 1997 and Criminal Misc. No. 6051M of 1997 are being disposed of by this common order since the questions of law and fact involved in these two cases are similar.

On 1661993 the Insecticide Inspector inspected the shop of M/s Dhanju Pesticide of which Bahadur Singh is the proprietor. He took samples of the Insecticide Reg or 30% E.C. which were admittedly in the original packing (tins). On analysis the insecticide was found to be misbranded. The Insecticide Inspector then file da complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, on 1121994 against (1) Dhanju pesticide, the dealer (2) Bahadur Singh, Proprietor of M/s Dhanju Pesticide Store (3) Delhi Agriculture Store through its proprietor Halkiat Singh,the distributor (4) Prem Parkash Aggarwal, Managing Director of M/s Hindustan Pulverising Mills, the Manufacturer and (5) M.N. Murli Kumar, Chief Chemist of the Manufacturer under Sections 3K(1) 17 18 & 33 of Insecticide Act,1968 for selling, stocking, distributing and manufacturing the substandard pesticide. On 1121994, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, ordered the accused to be summoned.

That is why Bahadur Singh the proprietor of M/s. Dhanju Pesticide Store and Dhanju Pesticides have filed Cr. Misc.,5583M 1997 while M/s. Delhi Agriculture store has filed Cr. Misc.6051M1997 u/s 482 or the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint and the summoning order. According to them, the samples were taken from the original packing and it is not alleged that they did not store it properly or tampered with the same, that shelf life of the insecticide expired in July 1994 whereas the complaint was filed on 1121994 and, therefore, the petitioners lost valuable opportunity of having the insecticide reanalysed which is a right granted u/s 24 of the Insecticide Act. They also contend that the manufacturer of this insecticide in question was not arraigned as an accused whereas the Managing Director and the Chief Chemist have been irnpleaded and, therefore, the Managing Director and the Chief Chemist filed Cr. Misc. 21202M of 1995 for quashing the same complaint, and the same has also been allowed by the order of this Court dated 521996.

Reply has been filed by the State of Punjab admitting that the sample was taken on 1661993 in the original packing and that the complaint was filed on 1121994, but alleging that the petitioners are equally responsible.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides.

Admittedly, the samples were drawn in the original packing. There is also no allegation in the complaint that the petitioners did not store the insecticide properly or that they tampered with the same. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the protection of Sub-section 3 of Section 30 of the Insecticide Act. The petitioners have alleged in the petition that they have not tampered with the original packing whereas there is no allegation even in the reply that they have tampered with the original packing. It is admitted by the respondent that the sample was drawn in its original packing .In such circumstances the petitioners could not have with ordinary diligence found out any defect in the insecticide contained in the original packing.

Secondly, the form XII which gives the details of the insecticides seized shows that the shelf life expired in July 1994, whereas the complaint was filed on 1121994, that is, after the expiry of the shelf life. As rightly contended by the petitioners they have lost the valuable right of having the insecticide reanalysed as guaranteed u/s 24 of the Insecticide Act.

Thirdly, as pointed out already, the manufacturer of the insecticide has not been arraigne das an accused and on that ground certain persons who were arraigned as being responsible for the manufacture filed a criminal miscellaneous petition in which the complaint as against them has also been quashed.

Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects, I am of the view that the complaint and the summoning order as against the petitioners, in these petitions, cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, the complaint and the summoning order impugned in these petitions are quashed as against these petitioners. These petitions are allowed accordingly.