Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
S.S. Fertilizer – Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M No.9632 of 2015
Decided On : 24-01-2017
Insecticides Act - Criminal Complaint - Sections 3K(1), 17, 18, 29, 33 - Rule 27(5) - [3K(1), 17, 18, 29, 33, Rule 27(5)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Insecticides Act, including Section 30(3) and Section 33, and their interpretation in relation to the liability of the dealer and the company. The court also referred to analogous provisions in the Negotiable Instruments Act and emphasized the importance of strict pleading requirements for holding individuals liable under Section 33.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of a criminal complaint under various sections of the Insecticides Act, alleging that the samples were drawn from the original sealed containers and the delay in sending the sample for analysis was fatal to the prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution against the petitioners was not sustainable in the eyes of the law, considering the provisions of the Insecticides Act and the strict pleading requirements for holding individuals liable under Section 33.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of the dealer and the company under the Insecticides Act, the delay in sending the sample for analysis, and the strict pleading requirements for holding individuals liable under Section 33.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of strict pleading requirements for holding individuals liable under Section 33 of the Insecticides Act and considered the provisions of the Act in relation to the liability of the dealer and the company.
Final Decision: The criminal petition was allowed, and the criminal complaint along with all consequential proceedings was quashed.
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Petitioners have sought quashing of criminal complaint No.6702 dated 24.09.2014 under Sections 3K(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 along with all consequential proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof.
2. Petitioners alleged that petitioner No.1 is a dealer-firm and has obtained the licence for selling, stocking and exhibiting for sale of different types of insecticides and pesticides including that of M/s Unique Farm Aid Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Petitioner No.2 is the proprietor of petitioner No.1. Insecticides Inspector inspected the premises of petitioner No.1 on 16.07.2012 and drew the sample of Monocrotophos 36% SL having manufacturing date April, 2012 and expiry date September, 2013 manufactured by M/s Devi Unique Farm Aid Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Para No.4 of the complaint filed by the complainant is to the following effect:-
"4. That after my routine checking of this dealer firm, I found that this firm was holding stock of 10 (ten) litres in 500 ml packing of insecticide Monocrotophos 36% SL bearing Batch No.12-UF-1602 having manufacturing date 04/2012 and expiry date 09/2013 manufactured by M/s Unique Farm-Aid Private Limited. Then I Amanjit Singh, Notified Insecticides Inspector, Baddowal Block, Ludhiana showed my intention to take the sample of Monocrotophos 36% SL to Sh. Subash Chand S/o Sh. Amrit Lal, Proprietor of M/s S.S. Fertilizer 14-New Grain Market, Mullanpur (Ludhiana) and got his signatures on the intimation slip. Then I selected 2 (two) lid sealed containers of SCO ml each for the same Batch No.12- UF-1602 and then prepared 3 (three) test samples being `loose' samples out of these sealed containers from the stock mentioned above manufactured by M/s Unique Farm-Aid Private Limited. I opened these 2 (two) lid sealed containers selected above and poured this insecticide approx. 250 ml each in the 3 (three) neat clean & dry tin containers. Then I closed these containers tightly with lid to avoid leakage. Then I filled 6 (six) copies of Form No.XXI bearing No.25412 as required under Rule 34 of the Insecticides Rules 1971 and marked the sample with Code No.12/M. Then I filled 4 (four) copies of Form No.XX bearing No.26262 as required under Rule 33 of the Insecticides Rules 1971 and mentioned the details of this insecticide. I had duly signed all these Forms No.XX &, XXI and put my brass seal with the use of ink pad on these forms bearing impression (II 3 B LDH). Then I had put one test sample tin container of this insecticide into each 3 (three) neat, clean & dry polythene envelopes which were then transferred to 3 (three) empty, clean & dry cloth bags one in each. I had put one duly filled Form No.XXI bearing No.25412 into each test sample portion. These test sample cloth bags were made airtight by folding upper portion of the cloth bags and then by putting white paper folding piece strips duly signed by me. These sample portions were tied with `seba' and sealed with the use of ‘lakh' (sealing wax) with my brass seal bearing seal impression (II 3 B LDH) by me at the spot on 16.07.2012. That one copy of Form No.XXI duly filled &. signed by me affixed with seal impression was put in the separate paper envelop and addressed to Govt. Analyst. That Sh. Subash Chand S/o Sh. Amrit Lal, Proprietor of M/s S.S. Fertilizer 14-New Grain Market, Mullanpur (Ludhiana) had signed all the 4 (four) copies of Form No.XX bearing No.26262 duly filled by me at the spot on 16.07.2012. That Sh. Pritpal Singh, Agricultural Development Officer (Enforcement) office of the Chief Agricultural Officer, Ludhiana had signed on these Forms No.XX bearing No.26262 duly filled being witness for taking this sample on 16.07.2012. That the detail of this sample was mentioned on the outside of the 3 (three) cloth bags such as name of insecticide, code number & date of sampling etc. That I had also acknowledged the receipt to the proprietor of this firm th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
