Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1308 (PNJ)

Jagtar Singh v. State Of Punjab

2008-08-04

AJAI LAMBA

body2008
Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the complaint (Annexure P-1) filed under the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Insecticides Rules, 1971 and summoning order dated 26.8.2004 (Annexure P-2). 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are licensees. Having a legal licence, the petitioners are entitled to store and sell insecticides and pesticides of the manufacturing companies, registered and approved by Government of India as well as Government of Punjab. Insecticides contained in sealed packets only are sold. On 16.12.2002, the respondent drew a sample of insecticide; namely, 2, 4-D Ethyl Ester 38%, bearing Batch No. RK-11, manufactured on 8.11.2002, having expiry date as 7.11.2004. The samples were drawn from duly sealed packets. It has been specifically asserted in the petition that the insecticides and pesticides were properly stored in the premises. The product was manufactured by M/s Jai Chemicals, Faridabad, which is a manufacturing company registered and authorized by Government of Punjab to sell its products in the State of Punjab. So as to support the argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the seizure memo itself in which the Insecticide Inspector who drew the sample, in column No. 5, has recorded that the sample was drawn from `original packet. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the strength of these specific averments made in para-3 of the petition, is that the petitioners cannot be held liable for the product that has been manufactured by another person. 4. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The specific averments as made and noticed in the earlier part of the order, have been admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-State. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied on the judgments of this Court in Gurmej Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 2008(2) RCR(Criminal) 24, M/s Lochen Kheti Sewa Centre, Behrampur Bet v. State of Punjab, 2008(2) RCR(Criminal) 22. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that continuance of further proceedings against the petitioners shall serve no legal purpose. M/s Jai Chemicals Limited, Faridabad, being the manufacturer, can only by held liable for the adulteration in the product. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that continuance of further proceedings against the petitioners shall serve no legal purpose. M/s Jai Chemicals Limited, Faridabad, being the manufacturer, can only by held liable for the adulteration in the product. The petitioners cannot be held liable for the reason that the petitioners are neither the manufactures of the product nor had violated any condition given in the licence issued to them by the respondent. The facts given above have not been disputed. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The complaint (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order (Annexure P-2), as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.