Dwarka Prashad Dhawan and others vs State of Punjab

Augustine George Masih, J.—The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the complaint No. 24 dated 28.08.2008 under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the Insecticides Act") read with Rule 2 (5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), titled as M/s. Ram Rachhpal Dhawan and sons and others, qua the petitioners, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground that the petitioners are license holders under the Act and the sample, which had been drawn from the petitioners, was from original packing.

Counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been arrayed as accused No. 1 to 4 in complaint No. 24 dated 28.08.2008, which had been filed under the Insecticides Act for violation of the provisions therein. He contends that in the light of the provisions of Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, complaint against the petitioners would not be maintainable as the sample, which was drawn from the petitioners, was from the original packing. He relies upon the recovery memo Form-XX, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure-P-3. He contends that there is no allegation in the complaint with regard to the fact that handling and storing of the insecticides was not proper or there was any negligence on the part of the petitioners in this regard. He, therefore, contends that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the complaint, qua the petitioners, be quashed. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Sahil Agrochemicals and another v. State of Punjab, 2002(4) RCR(Cri) 464.

Counsel for the respondent-State is unable to rebut the contentions, which have been raised by counsel for the petitioners. He contends that since the sample was drawn from the petitioners, therefore, they are liable under the Insecticides Act and the complaint, qua the petitioners, had been rightly filed by the respondent-State.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

The recovery memo Form-XX (Annexure-P-3), which has been placed on record, is not denied by the respondent-State. In the light of the provisions contained in Section 30 (3) of the Insecticides Act, the present complaint cannot be sustained against the petitioners. The assertion of counsel for the petitioner in the present petition is fully supported by the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Sahil Agrochemicals and another (supra). In view of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of M/s. Sahil Agrochemicals and another (supra), the present petition is allowed in same terms. Complaint No. 24 dated 28.08.2008 under Sections (k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968, read with Rule 27 (5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, qua the petitioners, who are accused No. 1 to 4 in the complaint is hereby quashed.