Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 172
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Gurinder Singh and Another - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 18361 of 2017, 35067 of 2018
Decided On : 09-04-2019
Rakesh Verma, Adv., M.S. Nagra, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Insecticide Act, 1968, particularly Section 29, Section 30(3), and Section 33, to determine the liability of the accused and the legal obligations of the manufacturing and selling of insecticides.
Headnote:
Insecticide Act - Quashing of complaint under Section 29 - Section 29 of Insecticide Act, 1968 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 29, Section 21 IPC, Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971, Section 31(1) of the Act, Section 22(5) of the Act, Section 30(3) of the Act, Section 33 of the Act - The court discussed the provisions of Section 29, Section 21 IPC, Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971, Section 31(1) of the Act, Section 22(5) of the Act, and Section 30(3) of the Act, and Section 33 of the Act. The court interpreted these provisions to determine the liability of the accused and the legal obligations of the manufacturing and selling of insecticides. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions and their application to the facts of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-complainant filed a complaint against the accused under Section 29 of the Insecticide Act, 1968, alleging the sale of misbranded insecticides. The trial court summoned all the accused to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 29 of the Act. The accused filed petitions challenging the summoning order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no prosecution could be launched against accused No.1 & 2 considering the protection granted to the dealer under Section 30(3) of the Act. The court also held that the complaint was not maintainable against accused No.3 to 5 as they were only employees of the manufacturing company, which was not impleaded as an accused.
Issues: The issues involved the liability of the accused under Section 29 of the Insecticide Act, 1968, and the interpretation of Sections 30(3) and 33 of the Act in relation to the manufacturing and selling of insecticides.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 29, Section 21 IPC, Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971, Section 31(1) of the Act, Section 22(5) of the Act, Section 30(3) of the Act, and Section 33 of the Act, which determined the liability of the accused and the legal obligations of the manufacturing and selling of insecticides.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed the complaint and summoning order against the accused.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
1. Prayer in both the petitions is for quashing of complaint No.25 dated 12.02.2016 under Section 29 of Insecticide Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act') titled as State Vs. M/s Sidhu Pesticide and Seed Store and others and the summoning order dated 12.02.2016 as well as all the consequential proceedings arising out of the complaint.
2. The common facts in both the petitions are that the respondent-complainant had filed the aforesaid complaint against the petitioners in CRM-M-18361-2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'accused No.1 & 2') and petitioners in CRM-M-35067-2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'accused No.3 to 5'), with the allegations that the complainant is an Agriculture Development Officer and has been declared as Insecticide Inspector by the Punjab Govt. and therefore, is empowered to file the complaint under Rule 27 (5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 (for short 'the Rules'), being public servant under Section 21 IPC. It is stated in the complaint that necessary consent to launch prosecution against the accused persons under Section 31 (1) of the Act was obtained from the office of Joint Director of Agriculture (Plant Protection), Punjab, who is competent authority vide notification dated 15.01.1993, to grant such sanction. It is further stated that accused No.2 M/s Sidhu Pesticide and Seed Store and accused No.1 Gurinder Singh, being its proprietor, are required to observe the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules as they are dealing with insecticides and are holding the licence to sell, stock or exhibit, vide licence dated 31.12.2015, issued by Licensing Authority-cum-Chief Agriculture Office, Rupnagar, Punjab. On 12.12.2012, the complainant inspected the premises of accused No.1 & 2, in exercise of powers under Section 21(2) of the Act and has drawn a sample of Pirxifop Propargal 15% WP, bearing Batch No.MF-10906, manufacturing dated 05.10.2011 and expiry dated 04.10.2013, required under Section 22(5) of the Act. The dealer was authorized by the manufacturer vide its Principal Certificate No.220 dated 28.03.2011 and supplied the above insecticide vide invoice No.240321920 dated 31.10.2011. The sample was drawn in presence of accused No.1 and intimation was given to him in Form XX, however, despite best efforts, no independent witness could be joined and one Chhota Singh, Agriculture Sub Inspector was present, when the samples were drawn. The samples were divided into three portions and the same were sealed separately. One sample was kept in the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Rupnagar for reference and second was sent to Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana for its quality analysis on 18.12.2012. The test report of the analysis was received on 04.01.2013 with the remarks that the sample does not confirm to IS Specification with respect to the present active ingredient contents and hence was declared misbranded. The contents were found to be Clodinafop Propargyl 13.12% WP and therefore, it was declared misbranded. The complainant served the test report upon the accused on 09.01.2013 and thereafter, accused No.1 requested for re-analysis of the sample from Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad. The sample was sent for re-analysis on 25.07.2013 and the test report was received on 27.08.2013 with the remarks that the sample does not confirm to relevant IS Specification and is hence misbranded. It is further stated in the complaint that the manufacturer is under legal obligation to supply insecticides as per IS specification under the Act and the Rules and accused No.1 & 2 are guilty of selling, stocking and exhibiting the misbranded insecticides and therefore, they have committed the offence under the relevant provisions of Act and Rules. It is further stated that accused No.3 & 4 are the responsible persons of the company, who were also individually liable for manufacturing and sale of misbranded insecticides and they have committed the offence under Section 29 of the Act
