Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Mohd. Yamin - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent - Respondent
CRM-M-30770 of 2019
Decided On : 17-08-2023
Insecticides Act - Dealer - Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 - The court discussed the provisions of the Insecticides Act, particularly focusing on the limitation for filing a complaint and the consequences of delay in prosecution. The court referred to Section 29 of the Insecticides Act and Section 468(2) of Cr.P.C. to determine the time limitation for filing the complaint. It also considered relevant judgments to support the argument that the delay in filing the complaint resulted in misuse of the process of law and defeated the ends of justice. The court ultimately quashed the complaint and consequent proceedings due to the delay in prosecution.
Fact of the Case:
The dealer sought quashing of a complaint and summoning order under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, as the complaint was filed beyond the statutory period of 3 years from the date of receipt of the laboratory report.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the complaint resulted in misuse of the process of law and defeated the ends of justice, ultimately leading to the quashing of the complaint and consequent proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the complaint under the Insecticides Act rendered it time-barred and whether such delay prejudiced the defense of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in filing the complaint beyond the statutory period of limitation resulted in misuse of the process of law and prejudiced the defense of the accused, leading to the quashing of the complaint and consequent proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the complaint and consequent proceedings were quashed due to the delay in prosecution.
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The present petition has been filed by the dealer, seeking quashing of Complaint No.63 dated 4.10.2017, registered under Sections 3 (k)(i),17,18,29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the summoning order dated 04.10.2017 passed by JMIC, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
2. The petition has been filed with averments that on 25.07.2013, Jaswinder Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Malerkotla, District Sangrur visited the shop premises of the dealer i.e. M/s Chowdhary Kissan Sewa Centre, Bhaini Kambhoan Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur of which the petitioner was a proprietor and drew a sample of insecticide, namely, Cartap Hydrochloride 4% GR, bearing Batch No. ACS/CE/132, manufacturing date March, 2013 and expiry dated February, 2015. Thereafter, accordingly, Form XX was prepared by the above said Insecticide Inspector, Jaswinder Singh, mentioning the details of manufacturer, batch No., date of the manufacture and the date of expiry of the product. After taking the sample, the same was sent for analysis to the Insecticide Quality Control Lab, Bathinda. The sample was found to be misbranded. The Insecticide Quality Control Lab., Bathinda; had sent a Report to this effect; which was received on 26.08.2013. On having been put to notice, the manufacturers had opted for analysis of the second sample. However, the second part of the sample was also found misbranded, and the report to this effect was received from the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad on 27.12.2013. The sanction for prosecution was applied for on 05.08.2016 and granted on 10.04.2017. Thereafter, the complaint was filed against the present petitioner who is the dealer and his co-accused, on 04.10.2017. The summoning order dated 04.10.2017 was issued against the accused under the provisions of the Insecticide Act and Rules framed thereunder. It is this Complaint and the summoning order which is being challenged by the petitioner through the present proceedings.
3. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the premises had been raided on 25.07.2013 the first sample report of the Insecticide Quality Control Lab, Bathinda was received on 26.08.2013 and the second part of the sample was found misbranded on 27.12.2013. However, the present complaint came to be instituted only on 4.10.2017 which was beyond the period of 03 years. Therefore, as the complaint was time barred it was liable to be quashed. Even otherwise, qua the co-accused of the petitioner who were the manufacturers and responsible officer of the manufacturing company the proceedings already stood quashed vide judgment Annexure P-4.
4. The Counsel for the State does not dispute this factual position that the proceedings qua the co-accused already stand quashed.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties.
6. In Sanjay Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-1358-2018(O&M) Decided on 30.04.2019 this Court passed the following order:-
Delay in filing a complaint under the Insecticides Act beyond the statutory period of limitation can result in misuse of the process of law and prejudice the defense of the accused, leading to the qu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of limitation for filing a complaint under the Insecticides Act commences from the date of receipt of the analyst's report, and the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the limitation period for launching prosecution under the Insecticides Act, 1968, and the exclusion of time for obtaining con....
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
