Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
Cheminova India Limited & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. - Respondents
CRM-M-12082-2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 12-05-2020
Mr. Pankaj Maini, Advocate, for the Appellants; Ms. Rashmi Attri, AAG, Punjab, for the Respondent
The court clarified the interpretation of the show-cause notice requirement, the purpose of the Insecticides Act, and the liability of the managing director and other responsible persons of the manufacturing firm.
Headnote:
Insecticides Act - Misbranded Insecticide - Section 29, 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 - Rules 10, 27(5)
Fact of the Case:
The complaint sought to quash a complaint filed under the Insecticides Act, 1968, alleging the sale of misbranded insecticide. The sample was found to contain less active ingredient than declared, leading to the misbranding charge.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioners' arguments, finding that the show-cause notice requirement was fulfilled, there was no undue delay in analysis, and the sanction for prosecution was valid. The court also held that the managing director and other responsible persons of the manufacturing firm could be held liable.
Issues: Non-compliance with show-cause notice requirement, delay in analysis, validity of prosecution sanction, and liability of the managing director and other responsible persons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the show-cause notice requirement as serving the purpose of making the person from whom the sample is taken aware of the analysis report. The court also emphasized that the purpose of the Act is to check the sale of spurious or misbranded insecticides. The court held that the right to re-analysis is fulfilled once the second sample is re-analyzed, and the purpose of the provision is achieved. The court also clarified the liability of the managing director and other responsible persons of the manufacturing firm.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed for petitioners 1-4, and accepted for petitioner 5, the Godown Incharge.
JUDGMENT
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. - The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of complaint No. 313 dated 19.8.2015 filed by respondent No. 2- The Quality Control Inspector, Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran under Section 29 read with Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rules 10 and 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971.
2. The facts, as extracted from complaint (Annexure P-1), are that on 31.12.2013 Shri Gurdeep Singh, Quality Control Inspector, Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran accompanied by Shri Partap Singh, Block Agriculture Officer, Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran inspected the premises of M/s Dhillon Kheti Store where Shri Nishan Singh, its sole proprietor, was present. Six boxes containing 25 packets each, of Piroxofop Propanyl (Clodinafop Propargyl 15% WP) , with each packet weighng 160 grams, were found stocked in the premises for sale. After serving notice in terms of Form XX, one packet of insecticide was taken out of the aforesaid 150 packets, and three samples, weighing 20 grams each of Piroxofop Propanyl (Clodinafop Propargyl 15% WP) were drawn and were duly sealed. One sealed sample was handed over to Shri Nishan Singh, Proprietor of the firm while the remaining two sealed samples were handed over to Shri Kirpal Singh, Agriculture Development Officer, Enforcement, Tarn Taran on 31.12.2013 itself. One sample out of the said two samples was sent to Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amritsar, for analysis vide letter no. 7304 dated 1.1.2014. The second sealed sample remained in custody of Shri Kirpal Singh, Agriculture Development Officer, Enforcement, Tarn Taran.
3. Upon analysis of the sample, the Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amritsar declared the sample in question to be misbranded vide its report dated 15.01.2014, as the same was found to contain active ingredient of Piroxofop Propanyl (Clodinafop Propargyl 15% WP) to the extent of 11.72% only as against the labled declaration of 15%. A copy of report of the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amritsar was communicated to Shri Nishan Singh, Proprietor, M/s Dhillon Kheti Store (dealer) along with show cause notice no. 8027 dated 29.1.2014.
4. In response to the show cause notice, Shri Nishan Singh (dealer) submitted his written reply, which was received in the office of the Chief Agriculture Officer, Tarn Taran on 21.2.2014. On 24.2.2014, Shri Nishan Singh (dealer) produced a copy of invoice dated 26.2.2013 indicating that he had purchased the insecticides in question from M/s Cheminova India Limited. Consequently, a copy of analysis report and show-cause notice was communicated to Managing Director of the manufacturing company i.e. M/s Cheminova India Limited, Bharuch, Gujarat, and to other responsible persons of the said company vide registered letter Nos. 9141-45 dated 27.3.2014 (Annexure P-4). In response thereof, the manufacturing company i.e petitioner no.1 submitted a written reply dated 5.4.2014 (Annexure P-5) alongwith a request to Chief Agriculture Officer, Tarn Taran for re-analysis of second sample of insecticide. Upon receipt of draft of Rs. 500/- from the firm, the second sample which was in the custody of Shri Kirpal Singh, Agriculture Development Officer, Enforcement, Tarn Taran was sent to Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Faridabad for re-analysis vide forwarding letter no. 11281 dated 21.7.2014 through ASI Balkar Singh.
5. Upon analysis of the second sample at Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Faridabad, it was again reported that the sample was misbranded as the same was found to contain 10.09% of active ingredient as against 15%, as labelled on the packet. The said report was received in the office of the Chief Agriculture Officer, Tarn Taran on 14.8.2014 and a copy thereof was sent to M/s Cheminova India Limited, Bharuch vide registered letter No.11
