Prithpal Singh vs State of Punjab

K.S. Kumaran, J.

The petitioner Prithpal Singh, who was serving as StoreOfficer under Kisan Chemicals, a unit of Montari Industries Limited, New Delhi, who are manufacturing Insecticides, has come forward with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint annexure P1 lodged under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 19 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana and the consequential proceedings.

The complainant Insecticides Inspector inspected the premises of the secondrespondent herein on 7.12.1988 and took the sample of 24D, Ethyal Ester of 34% EC bearing the manufacturing date as October, 1988 and the Expiry September, 1990. On chemical analysis by the Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana the sample was found to be not upto the required specification as it contained 20.64% active ingredient instead of 30%. The complainant Insecticides Inspector filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana on 10.11.1991. The petitioner contends that he was summoned to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, on 25.4.1995, after a lapse of seven years and after the expiry of shelflife of the insecticides thereby depriving him of an opportunity to have the sample reanalysed. According to him, this is violation of the statutory right conferred on him under Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions rendered in Bhai Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1992(1) RCR 552. U.B. Bukna v. State of Punjab, 1993(1) RCR 665 and M/s Jai Chemicals v. State of Punjab, 1995(3) RCR 220. These decisions clearly support the contention of the petitioner and on this ground alone the complaint as well as consequential proceedings in so far as they relate to the petitioner have to be quashed.

The petitioner has also taken the plea that the complaint annexure P1 has been filed against him and three others, but the manufacturer of the Insecticides has not been arrayed as an accused. According to him without making the manufacturer of the insecticides as the accused, the complaint as against the servant of the manufacturer is not maintainable. In support of this contention, he relied upon the decisions rendered in Sham Sunder Bassi v. State of Punjab, 1991(3) RCR 199 and R.C. Gupta v. State of Haryana, 1994(2) RCR 418. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. On the ground also the complaint as well as the consequential proceedings as against the petitioner have to be quashed. The petitioner also contended that he was not given any showcause notice and was also not served with a copy of the analysis report, thereby depriving him of an opportunity to put forth his case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that annexure P6 the sanction produced by the complaintant before the Court has not been given qua the petitioner and, therefore, also the complaint should fail as against him. These grounds urged by the petitioner are also well taken. In view of the above infirmities the complaint as well as the consequential proceedings as against the petitioner or will have to be quashed and therefore, it is unnecessary for me to refer to the other contentions put forward by the petitioner. The result is that the petition is allowed. The complaint as well as the consequential proceedings as against the petitioner and impugned in this petition are quashed.