Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 834 (PNJ)

Kissan Sales Corporation v. State of Punjab

2003-05-28

KIRAN ANAND LALL

body2003
JUDGMENT Kiran Anand Lall, J. - This is a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of complaint, Annexure P-1, filed against the petitioner under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, by the Insecticides Inspector and the summoning order dated 7.1.2000, Annexure P-2 passed by the trial court. 2. It is not disputed that a sample of Anilophos 30% manufactured and supplied by the licensed manufacturer, M/s. Swastic Chemicals and Pesticides, Rohtak, was drawn out of one five-litre pack, from the premises of the petitioner on 20.5.1999. On being tested by the Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana, the sample was found to be not conforming to the relevant IS-specifications in its active ingredients percentage, as it contained only 22.62% active ingredients instead of 30% EC and was as such mis-branded. The licence of the petitioner for sale of insecticides was, consequently, cancelled by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot, while exercising the powers under Section 14 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short, "the Act") and the complaint under reference was also filed in court against the petitioner. 3. During the pendency of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record, order dated 22.5.2000 of the Appellate Authority viz. Joint Director Agriculture (Plant Protection), Punjab, vide which while restoring the licence of the petitioner for sale of insecticides, protection of Section 30(3) of the Act was also given to him. Relevant part of this order, Annexure P-5, reads as under :- "After considering all the facts, I grant the protection of Section 30(3) of the dealer (appellant) and restore his licence. But the dealer was not permitted to sell the insecticides Anilophos 30% manufactured by M/s. Swastic Chemicals and Pesticides, because this dealer has sold the misbranded insecticides manufactured by this company." 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, as protection under Section 30(3) of the Act has been given by the Appellate Authority while restoring the licence of the petitioner, the complaint filed against him deserves to be quashed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, as protection under Section 30(3) of the Act has been given by the Appellate Authority while restoring the licence of the petitioner, the complaint filed against him deserves to be quashed. In support of his contention, he has referred to the judgment reported as Rajinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2003(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 244, wherein it was held that if the defences available to the dealer have been accepted in the proceedings pertaining to the cancellation of licence by the Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the Act by recording a finding in his favour, then the criminal prosecution for the contravention of the same provisions of the Act cannot be allowed to continue and can be quashed by the High Court, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 482 of the Code. This legal proposition was not controverted by the learned Deputy Advocate General. However, according to his interpretation, the Appellate Authority has not permitted the sale of insecticide Anilophos 30% by the petitioner. I am afraid, this interpretation is not correct. As a reading of Annexure P-5 shows, the Appellate Authority has clearly accepted the defence of the petitioner and has restored his licence for sale of insecticides, though it has added that the insecticide Anilophos 30%, manufactured by M/s. Swastic Chemicals and Pesticides will not be sold by the petitioner as this insecticide manufactured by these manufacturers, of which sample was seized from the petitioner, had been found misbranded. The Appellate Authority has not forbidden the petitioner from sale of the said insecticide manufactured by other manufacturers. The Appellate Authority has accepted the defence of the petitioner and has restored his licence to sell insecticides (including Anilophos 30%). That being so, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment, above referred to, and as such, criminal prosecution for contravention of the same provisions of the Act, for which the defence available to him has been accepted by the Appellate Authority, cannot be allowed to continue. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the criminal complaint pending against the petitioner in the trial court is quashed. Petition allowed.