AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.S. Chahal, J.
This order will dispose of two connected petitions Cr. M. 5713M/93 and Cr. M. 4157M of 1993 brought under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the complaint dated March 27,1991 pending in the Court of CJM Bhatinda for offence under Sections 3(k)/17/18/29/33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short the Act) and under Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, and the summoning order dated April 29, 1991.
The facts are being drawn from Cr.M. 5713M of 1993.
The petitioners are being prosecuted along with one Pawan Kumarpartner of M/s. Pawan Kumar Sukhdev Kumar, Insecticides Dealer, Sangat Mandi, Bhatinda. The facts so far as necessary, and as given in complaint Annexure P2 may be briefly enumerated.
On August 31, 1989, Kuldip Singh, Agriculture Inspector, who is duly notified as Insecticides Inspector, visited the premises of M/s. Pawan Kumar Sukhdev Kumar, Sangat Mandi, who holds a licence for the storage and sale of the pesticides from the Licensing Authority. A sample of insecticide Fencron 20% EC, 20 containers of 25 ml each which had been kept for sale was taken. Out of the containers, three containers of one Batch No. 44 carrying manufacturing date as November, 1988 and expiry date as October, 1990 which item had been manufactured by M/s. Sunwin Laboratories, Bombay and marketed by M/s Hindustan Ciba Gegy Limited, Bombay were taken. This sample was taken in accordance with Section 22(5) of the Act and Rules 33/34 of the Insecticides Rules, 1971. The particulars of the insecticide were mentioned in Form12 and the signatures of Pawan Kumar were obtained on the containers as well as Form12. They were then duly sealed in three separate polythene bags. One of the samples was deposited with the Chief Agricultural Officer. A sample was sent to the Central Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Faridabad for test and the Laboratory reported vide report dated November 7, 1989 that the sample was not found according to the standard of ISI and was found to be misbranded for the reason that the active ingredient was found to be 18.44% instead of 20%. A showcause notice dated November 23,1989 was issued to the Dealer. A show cause notice dated September 29, 1990 was sent to the Manufacturer and another show cause notice dated 23111989 to the Distributor.
Mr. P.S. Hundal, who appears for the petitioner has urged that the complaint had been filed on March 27, 1991 i.e. after the expiry of the shelflife of the insecticide and this had prejudiced the case of the petitioner and further that the Insecticides Inspector was not competent to send the sample direct to the Central Insecticides Testing Laboratory, but should have sent it to the Analyst so as not to deprive the petitioner of his right to get the second sample tested from The Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory. The argument of the learned counsel has, however, no merit.
Under Section 21 of the Act, an Insecticides Inspector shall have the power, "to exercise such other powers as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act or the rules made thereunder". This power is wide enough to allow the Insecticides Inspector to send the sample direct to the Central Insecticides Laboratory so that a final report is received during the shelflife of the insecticide. There was, thus, no illegality in sending of the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory.
The Insecticides Inspector had sent due communication to the petitioner during the shelflife of the insecticide and admittedly they did not convey any intention to challenge that report. Since the test report analysed by the Director of Central Insecticides Laboratory has been made a conclusive evidence vide Section 24(4) of the Act, the insecticide has been certified to be misbranded and to be not in conformity with the ISI standard as well as with the ingredients as specified on the labels.
No case is, thus, made out for quashing of the complaint and the summoning order. Both the petitions stand disposed of