Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 626 (PNJ)

Vineet Bhushan v. State Of Punjab

2002-07-02

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2002
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relates to quashment of complaint under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 , read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 dated June 6, 1994 (Annexure P1), the summoning order dated April 7, 1995 (Annexure P2) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that Mr. Kulvinder Singh, Insecticides Inspector, Batala, inspected the premises of respondent No. 2 on June 14, 1993 and took three samples of Anilofos 30% EC. The samples were manufactured by M/s Kisan Chemicals, of which the petitioner is the Assistant Manager. The batch number of the samples was 34 while the manufacturing and the expiry date were February 1993 and January 1995, respectively. After conducting usual formalities, one sample was given to respondent No. 2 and the other two samples were deposited in the office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur. One sample was sent to the Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana on June 21, 1993. As per test report dated August 11, 1993, the sample was not upto the required specifications as it contained 27.88% active ingredient instead of 30%. In rest of the tests, the sample satisfied the requirements of ISI specifications. 3. A show-cause notice dated August 30, 1993 (Annexure P5) was issued to M/s Kisan Chemicals, Chandigarh by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur, along with the report of the Analyst dated August 11, 1993 (Annexure P6). Vide letter dated September 27, 1993, M/s Kisan Chemicals filed reply to the show cause notice. It was stated that on receipt of the notice, they had analysed the control sample of their product, which the Analyst had found to be complying with the prescribed standard requirements. A copy of the analysis so conducted is at Annexure P8. The Chief Agricultural Officer considered the reply and vide his letter dated March 4, 1994 informed M/s Kisan Chemicals that the reply was found to be unsatisfactory. A copy of the letter is at Annexure P11. 4. It has also been mentioned that two samples of the same product and of the same batch number were taken by Sardar Balvinder Singh, Insecticides Inspector, Sangrur. On analysis, the same were found to be of the prescribed standard. 5. A copy of the letter is at Annexure P11. 4. It has also been mentioned that two samples of the same product and of the same batch number were taken by Sardar Balvinder Singh, Insecticides Inspector, Sangrur. On analysis, the same were found to be of the prescribed standard. 5. After obtaining sanction to prosecute from the Joint Director (Agriculture), Chandigarh, vide letter dated April 4, 1994, the complainant filed a complaint dated June 6, 1994 (Annexure P1) against M/s Ghuman Pesticide, Batala (respondent No. 2) and M/s Kisan Chemicals, Chandigarh through Mr. V.M. Vashishat and Mr. Vineet Bhushan (petitioner). On the basis of the complaint, the petitioner has been summoned vide order dated April 7, 1995 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur (Annexure P2). 6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the shelf life of the sample had already expired when the petitioner was summoned on April 7, 1995. Thus, the petitioner has been deprived of his right to get the second sample re-analysed and an opportunity to controvert the correctness of the report of the Analyst, has not been granted to him. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the two samples of the same products and of the same batch, which were taken by Sardar Balvinder Singh, Insecticides Inspector, Sangrur, were found to be conforming to the I.S.I. specifications. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the analysis got conducted by the complainant was defective. 8. I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A look at Annexure P3 and P4 would show that the samples of Anilofos 30% EC of the same batch were got analysed from Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana, on August 6, 1993. The Senior Analyst opined that the said samples "conform to the IS Specifications with regard to its percent active ingredient contents." The said reports of the Senior Analyst have not been controverted on behalf of the State. Thus, it can only be presumed that the test of the sample, which was taken in the present case, was defective. 9. Further, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no allegation levelled against the petitioner either in the sanction or in the complaint. The sanction has been granted in a mechanical manner. 10. Thus, it can only be presumed that the test of the sample, which was taken in the present case, was defective. 9. Further, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no allegation levelled against the petitioner either in the sanction or in the complaint. The sanction has been granted in a mechanical manner. 10. A perusal of the sanction granted by the Joint Director and the complaint would show that there is no allegation of any role played by the petitioner. There is no mention as to what role had been played by the petitioner in the production of the insecticide in question. The case of the petitioner is not covered under Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1988. It is obvious that according to sub-section (2) of section 33 of the said Act, when an offence has between allegedly committed by a Company, then every person, who at the time the offence was committed, is responsible shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence, provided that he was in charge of or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the Company as such. In the complaint (Ex.P1) there is no allegation made that the petitioner was in charge was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. The complaint as well as the sanction are totally blank in this regard. In the absence of any material connecting the petitioner with the provisions of sub- sections (1) and (2) of Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 , the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the commission of the offence. 11. Still further it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a copy of the report of the Analyst had not been supplied to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the non-supply of the report to the petitioner is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 12. I find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though there is no obligation on the part of the Insecticides Inspector to supply a copy of the report of the Analyst to the manufacturer of the insecticide, but if the manufacturer of the insecticide is sought to be prosecuted, there is no reason why a copy of the report should not supplied to him. Though there is no obligation on the part of the Insecticides Inspector to supply a copy of the report of the Analyst to the manufacturer of the insecticide, but if the manufacturer of the insecticide is sought to be prosecuted, there is no reason why a copy of the report should not supplied to him. The object of making the provision for delivery of the copy of the report is to give an opportunity to the person concerned to controvert the report in case he is prosecuted. Therefore, irrespective of the provision contained in sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 , the ends of justice demand that the person, who is sought to be prosecuted must be supplied with a copy of the report. In this view of mine, I am fortified by the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Trilok Singh v. State of Punjab, 1991(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 12 : 1990(3) RCR(Crl.) 194 (P&H). 13. In the light of the above discussion, I allow the petition and quash the complaint and the summoning order as well as all the subsequent proceedings undertaken pursuant thereto.