Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 345 (PNJ)

Mohan Khad Store, Amritsar v. State Of Punjab

2002-04-01

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2002
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. Present petition has been filed for quashing the complaint dated November 19, 1991 (Annexure P3) as also the proceedings on the basis of the said complaint. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the Insecticides Inspector, Amritsar, inspected the premises of the petitioner and took sample of isoproturon 75% W.P. (Isozon-75 WP). The said sample was sent to the Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana, who opined that the sample sent to him was misbranded as it contained by 63.82% W.P. w/w of Isoproturon as against the guaranteed percentage of 75, as labelled on the packets/containers. Thus, as per the report of the Senior Analyst, the sample did not conform to the I.S.I. specifications in respect of its ingredients. 3. On the basis of the report of the Senior Analyst, the complaint was filed on November 19, 1991 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. The petitioner was, accordingly, summoned on the basis of the complaint on the same day. 4. It has been averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a licensed dealer and the sample was drawn from a sealed package. The counsel contends that Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 gives protection to the licensed dealers who have sold the same as it is. According to him, it is not possible for the dealer to know the contents of the items which were in sealed containers. Hence, according to the counsel, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the same. 5. Mr. J.S. Bedi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, has contended that the petitioner was not a licensed dealer for the product which was sold, i.e., isoproturon 75% W.P., which is also called Isozon-75WP. According to Mr. Bedi, as the petitioner was not authorised to sell this item, therefore, the complaint was rightly filed against him and he is liable to face the trial. Counsel for the State has further contended that the insecticide sold by the petitioner was sub-standard, as held by the Senior Analyst, and, therefore, the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted for the same. 6. I have perused the case very carefully with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I find that the petitioner did not have the licence to sell Isoproturon 75% manufactured by M/s Duzon Agroaids Private Limited, Dankaur, District Bulandshahar. 6. I have perused the case very carefully with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I find that the petitioner did not have the licence to sell Isoproturon 75% manufactured by M/s Duzon Agroaids Private Limited, Dankaur, District Bulandshahar. The sample has also been found to be sub- standard, for which the petitioner must face the trial. 7. The issuance of summons by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, cannot, in any way, be said to be an abuse of the process of the Court. The same was found to be misbranded and, therefore, the petitioner has to be tried in accordance with law. 8. Consequently, the present petition for quashing the complaint and the proceedings taken with respect thereto is dismissed. Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible.