Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1228 (PNJ)

Dhaliwal Agro Centre v. State Of Punjab

2001-11-02

K.S.KUMARAN

body2001
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. Heard counsel and perused records on file. The complaint in the present case was that the Agricultural Development Officer (notified as Insecticides Inspector) raised the premises of Kissan Sewa Centre, Gill on 8.8.1995 and took the samples of B.B.C. 10% (DP), gamma Isomer manufactured by Ajay Ferti.Chem. It has also been alleged therein that after following the formalities, one sample taken by the Insecticides Inspector was sent to the Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory. Ludhiana, who sent his report stating that the sample does not, conform to the standard specifications. Thereafter a notice was issued to M/s Kissan Sewa Centre and also to the petitioner-Dhaliwal Agro Centre. According to the complaint, the petitioner has violated the provisions of Sections 3K(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint and the further proceedings. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raises a vital objection that even as per the seizure memo annexure P-3 the Insecticide was in a sealed packing and the petitioner without tampering with the seal sells them in the same packing condition. He also contends that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. He therefore contends that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Sub Section (3) of Section 30 of the Insecticides Act. He also points out that there is no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner did not keep the insecticide properly stored. 4. In the reply filed by the State, it has been admitted that the petitioner deals in insecticides as per the license obtained from the Chief Agricultural Officer, Ludhiana, though it has been stated that the petitioner has distributed the insecticide which was found to be mis-branded. The only allegation in the reply against the petitioner is that the petitioner, cannot escape from the responsibility as the sample was found to be mis-branded. But, it is not stated that the insecticide was not stored properly. It has been stated that the petitioner may or may not have been stocking the Insecticides in the same packing condition as was received by it from the manufactures. It was also not denied that the Insecticides were in a sealed packing. 5. The fact that the petitioner only sells insecticides is not questioned. In the complaint, Ajay Ferti. It has been stated that the petitioner may or may not have been stocking the Insecticides in the same packing condition as was received by it from the manufactures. It was also not denied that the Insecticides were in a sealed packing. 5. The fact that the petitioner only sells insecticides is not questioned. In the complaint, Ajay Ferti. Chem.-3rd accused is stated to be the manufacturer. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner did not properly store the insecticide in the same state as it was acquired by him. When this position is not disputed by the state, and when it is clear that the Insecticide was in a sealed packing, the petitioner could not have, with due diligence ascertained that the Insecticide in any way contravened the provisions of the Act. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in Safex Chemicals India Limited v. State of Haryana, 2000(1) RCR 654 rendered by relying upon the decision in M/s Bharat Pesticides v. State of Punjab, 1998(3) RCR 189 wherein the complaint and the summoning order were quashed, in the similar circumstances. 7. In M/s Bharat Pesticides case (supra), it was found that the Insecticide was acquired from the licensed manufacturer in sealed containers, and while in the possession of the petitioner, the insecticide was properly stored and remained in the same condition when it was acquired. It was held that there was no justification in filing a complaint, and that it would be an abuse of process of court. 8. In these circumstances, in view of the provisions contained in sub- section (3) of the Section 30 of the Insecticides Act and the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the complaint against the petitioner cannot be sustained. 9. No other point was raised by the learned counsel for the State. 10. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed quashing the complaint, the summoning order and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner-herein. Petition allowed.