Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 875 (PNJ)

Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-07-02

VINEY MITTAL

body2003
ORDER Viney Mittal, J. - The present petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the complaint dated April 19, 1993 filed under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A copy of the complaint has been appended as Annexure P.6 with the present petition. 2. As per the averments made in the complaint, on July 24, 1992, the Insecticide Inspector visited the premises of M/s. Cheema Kheti Sewa Centre, Talwandi Gate, Raikot, District Ludhiana. A sample of phorate 10% was taken. The same was got analysed and was found to be misbranded. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated October 9, 1992 (Annexure P.3) was served upon the dealer as well as the manufacturers. A reply to the aforesaid show cause notice dated October 29, 1992 was sent by M/s. Bharat Insecticides Limited who was the distributor of the aforesaid pesticides manufactured by M/s. Heena Pesticides, petitioner No. 3. In the aforesaid reply, the said distributor specifically showed its intention to get the said insecticides analysed under the provisions of Section 24(3) of the Act from the Central Insecticides Laboratory. 3. It may be relevant to note here at this stage that the sample of the insecticides which was drawn on July 24, 1992 was to expire in April, 1993. 4. Although, the reply had clearly indicated the intention of the accused to get the sample re-analysed under the provisions of the Act from the Central Insecticides Laboratory but no action whatsoever was taken by the concerned authorities. Ultimately consent dated February 2, 1993 (Annexure P.5) was obtained from the competent authority and thereafter a complaint was filed before the learned trial Magistrate. 5. On the filing of the aforesaid complaint, a summoning order dated April 19, 1993 (Annexure P.7) was passed by the learned trial Magistrate summoning the accused for May 27, 1993. However, the accused were not served for the aforesaid date, therefore, subsequently they were summoned for July 13, 1993. 6. 5. On the filing of the aforesaid complaint, a summoning order dated April 19, 1993 (Annexure P.7) was passed by the learned trial Magistrate summoning the accused for May 27, 1993. However, the accused were not served for the aforesaid date, therefore, subsequently they were summoned for July 13, 1993. 6. The present petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the aforesaid complaint as well as the summoning order primarily on the ground that since the petitioners had already requested on October 29, 1992 for getting the sample re-analysed but no action has been taken by the competent authorities on the aforesaid request and the shelf life of the sample had expired, therefore, their vested right to get the sample re-analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory had been taken away. Therefore a great prejudice has been caused to them and the complaint in question could not have been filed or continued against them. 7. Shri Arun Nehra, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of Rajasthan and anr., JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 516 : 2002(4) RCR(Crl.) 762 (SC) to contend that when the request of the accused for sending the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory which had been made within the shelf life of the insecticide has been ignored by the competent authorities then the continuation of the complaint against them was a mere futile exercise and abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, has prayed that the complaint and the summoning order be quashed. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. The facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the shelf life of the aforesaid sample which was drawn on July 24, 1992 was to expire in the month of April 1993. A request was made on October 29, 1992 (Annexure P.4) by the distributors while filing reply to the show cause notice dated October 9, 1992 (Annexure P.3). The said request was completely ignored. No action was taken by the complaint authority. A request was made on October 29, 1992 (Annexure P.4) by the distributors while filing reply to the show cause notice dated October 9, 1992 (Annexure P.3). The said request was completely ignored. No action was taken by the complaint authority. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that the vested right of the petitioners to get the sample re-analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory has been lost and a great prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. In these circumstances, as per the law laid down in M/s Gupta Chemicalss case (supra), the complaint (Annexure P.6) as well as the summoning order (Annexure P.7) are hereby quashed. With the above observations, the present petition is disposed of. Petition allowed.