Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 505 (PNJ)

Singla Trading Co. v. State of Punjab

2004-04-29

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2004
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - The petitioner firm has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint filed against it under Sections 3(K)(l), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 by the Insecticide Inspector and further for quashing all the consequent proceedings arising out of the said complaint. 2. Petitioner is a licensed dealer firm, dealing in selling, stocking and exhibiting for sale of different types of insecticides/pesticides. On 6.6.1995, a sample of Monocrotophos 36% out of the sealed packing of 500 Lt. pack having its manufacturing date March, 1995 and expiry date August, 1996 manufactured by M/s Northern Minerals Limited Gurgaon was taken from the shop of the petitioner firm which was found to be mis-branded by the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana. Thereupon, the aforesaid complaint was filed. 3. In the instant petition the primary contention of the petitioner firm is that it is neither the manufacturer nor distributor. It sells the insecticides in sealed packed container as packed and stored by the manufacturer. The sample was taken from the original pack container which was stored in proper condition. Thus, it is entitled for protection under Section 30(3) of the Act and the complaint filed against it under the Act is liable to be quashed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on the basis of the report of the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, in which sample of insecticide taken from the petitioner firm was found to be mis-branded, its license was cancelled under Section 14 of the Act by the Licensing Authority vide order dated 9.11.1995. Against that order the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 15 of the Act before the Appellate Authority. In the said appeal, the petitioner took the aforesaid plea and claimed the protection under Section 30(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.5.1996 allowed the said appeal while holding that the petitioner is entitled for protection under Section 30(3) of the Act being dealer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of this fact also the complaint filed by the Insecticide Inspector against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 5. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.5.1996 allowed the said appeal while holding that the petitioner is entitled for protection under Section 30(3) of the Act being dealer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of this fact also the complaint filed by the Insecticide Inspector against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 5. The controversy involved in this petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court rendered in Rajinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2003(2) RCR(Crl.) 244 wherein it has been held as under :- "...It is, therefore, held that if the defences available to the dealer have been accepted in the proceedings pertaining to the cancellation of license 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. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the situation enumerated in Section 30(3) of the Act is the defence available to the accused dealer and he can avail this defence only after the prosecution leads its evidence to prove its case. Before that stage of prosecution the criminal complaint or the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused dealer for contravention of the provisions of the Act cannot be quashed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code on the basis of the averments made in the petition and admitted position in the complaint pertaining to the three situations mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Act. The only exception in which the criminal complaint and the prosecution can be quashed is there where the defence available to the dealer under Section 30(3) of the Act has been accepted by the Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the Act while setting aside the order of suspension or revocation of his license. Thus, the question of law referred to this Bench is answered accordingly." The instant case of the petitioner firm squarely falls under the aforesaid exception as its defence was accepted by the Appellate Authority and a finding was recorded that it was entitled to protection available under Section 30(3) of the Act. Thus, the question of law referred to this Bench is answered accordingly." The instant case of the petitioner firm squarely falls under the aforesaid exception as its defence was accepted by the Appellate Authority and a finding was recorded that it was entitled to protection available under Section 30(3) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant petition is allowed. The complaint (Annexure P-1) and the subsequent proceedings therefrom are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.