IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J.
Anil Kapoor – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M No. 11268 of 2020
Decided On : 11-05-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to the case and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding limitation and liability. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis and reasoning on misbranding. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. ratio decidendi regarding accountability under the act. (Para 8) |
| 5. final conclusion and order of quashing the complaint. (Para 10 , 11) |
Judgment
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.
By way of present petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908, petitioner has sought quashing of complaint No.COMA/267/2017, instituted on 11.05.2017, filed under Sections 3 K (I) 17, 18, 29, 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred as 1968 Act), punishable under Section 29 (1) (9) of The INSECTICIDES ACT , 1968 (for short ‘the Act’) and The INSECTICIDES RULES 1971 as well as summoning order dated 09.06.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar besides, all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Brief facts of the case as noted in the complaint are that Gurcharan Singh- complainant/Insecticide Inspector, Bhogpur (now posted as Agri. Dev. Officer Enf. Jalandar), in exercise of powers conferred upon the him vide government notification No. S 090/ C.A./46/68-S-20/91 dated 30.10.1991, while performing official duty, inspected the shop of M/s G.S. Fertilizer Mill Road, Bhogpur, Distt. Jalandhar along with Sh. Viney Kumar A.O. Bhogpur on 06.07.2013. Complainant disclosed his identity as Insecticide Inspector Bhogpur and intended to take sample from the shop of Kulwant Singh, Proprietor of the accused firm G S Fertilizer, Mill Road Bhogpur, Distt. Jalandhar, who was present at the time of inspection. Thereafter, complainant gave intimation in form XX (Annexure C-2) for the purpose of sampling. Complainant inspected the stock register & put his initial on it and verified the stock of the accused firm in respect of Butachlor 50% EW which was manufactured by Sumil Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Samba (J&K). According to stock register there were 40 packings of 5 litres each. For the purpose of sampling in exercising power conferred upon him under Section 21(1) (e) in the 1968 Act and duties vide Rules 27(3) of the Insecticide Rules 1971, complainant selected one packing of (5 litre) Butachlor 50% EW bearing Batch no.SC. 0121 manufacturing date 29.03.2013 & expiry date 28.03.2015. Complainant opened the packing of above said insecticide and took about 600 ml of Butachlor 50% EW for the purpose of sampling; poured in 3 containers of 200 ml each and closed it tightly. Out of three portions of sample, one was given to Kulwant Singh for testing the same in Insecticide Laboratory, Bathinda; whereas other two portion of samples of above said insecticide were kept by complainant.
3. The Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Bathinda after analysing the sample, gave its report dated 18.07.2013 which was received in the office of Chief Agri. Officer Jalandhar with the remarks that the “same did not confirm the I.S.I. specifications in respect of ingredients 50% EW found 47.87 % EW”, thus the sample was misbranded, regarding which a complaint was filed on 11.05.2017 and Learned CJM, Jalandhar passed the summoning order on 09.06.2017.
4. Through the present petition, petitioner has sought quashing of complaint No. COMA/267/2017 dated 11.05.2017, summoning order dated 09.06.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the complaint, the only allegation against him is that he was involved in the sale of misbranded insecticide and the said insecticide was manufactured by Sumil chemicals limited and marketed by M/s Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota, Rajasthan. He further contents that, as per Section 469 Cr.P.C., the limitation in relation to an offence shall commence on the date of the offence, hence, the respondent having inspected the premises of M/s G.S. Fertilizers, Mill Road, Bhogpur, D
Cheminova India Limited and another vs. State of Punjab and another
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 court ruled that the limitation period for filing a complaint under the Insecticides Act begins from the date the Government Analyst's report is received, not from the sample collection date.
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....
A retailer or marketing firm is not liable for misbranding if the insecticide was sold in sealed packaging and there is no evidence of their knowledge regarding the misbranding.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.