Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1263 (PNJ)

Sat Pal Raj Pal v. State Of Punjab

2001-11-09

S.S.NIJJAR

body2001
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the complaint filed against the petitioner under the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Insecticides Rules, 1971. The petitioner-firm deals in insecticides and pesticides being duly authorised by the appropriate authority. The petitioner firm sells insecticides and pesticides of registered and licensed manufacturer under the sealed and packed conditions. The seals affixed by the manufacturer are not tampered with by the petitioner-firm at any stage. 2. On 29.6.1998, Gurmel Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Rama Mandi, District Bhatinda, took sample of Butchalor 50% EC pesticide from the shop of the petitioner. The sample has been declared misbranded after Chemical examination by the State Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana. The active ingredient contents were found to be only 26.15% EC instead of 50% EC, which did not conform to I.S. Specifications. 3. In paragraph 6(i) of the reply to the petition filed by the respondent, it is stated as follows : "Sample was drawn from the premises of the petitioner-firm from the original one litre pack of Butachlore in accordance with the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 ." 4. In paragraph 6 of the complaint, it is stated that the pack selected for sampling was properly shaken and 750 ml. of Butchalore 50% was put into three separate clean and dry sample constainers and caps of containers were screwed tightly. These averments clearly show that the packing had not been tampered with by the dealer. 5. Mr. Rakesh Verma has argued that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in the case of M/s. Bharat Pesticides v. State of Punjab, 1998(3) RCR 189. In that case, this Court had quashed the proceedings on the ground that once it is found that the insecticide was acquired from the licensed manufacturer in sealed container and while in possession of the petitioner, the insecticide was properly stored and remained in the same condition when it was acquired, it would not be open to the respondent-complainant to file a complaint on the same set of facts. It was also held that the filing of the complaint would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 6. As noticed earlier, the respondent has accepted the fact that the sample has been drawn from the sealed container and that there was no tampering with the seal. It was also held that the filing of the complaint would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 6. As noticed earlier, the respondent has accepted the fact that the sample has been drawn from the sealed container and that there was no tampering with the seal. If that be so, the matter is squarely covered by the decision rendered in M/s. Bharat Pesticides case (supra). This petition has to be allowed on this short point. 7. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Complaint Annexure P-1, summoning order Annexure P-2 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner-firm. No costs. Petition allowed.