TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. It is not in dispute that report from Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana was received by the Inspector on 14.03.2011. Section 29 of the Act deals with the 'offences and punishment'. The Appellants are sought to be prosecuted on the ground of misbranding of the insecticide, i.e., Trizophos 40% E.C. It is the allegation in the complaint that upon analysis of the sample, same was found to contain active ingredient to the extent of 34.70% only as against the labelled declaration of 40%. Thus, it is a case of 'misbranding' within the meaning of Section 3(k)(i) of the Act and selling of such misbranded item is in violation of Sections 17, 18, and 33 punishable Under Section 29 of the Act. In the present case, it is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 12.05.2020 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh. By the aforesaid order, High Court has dismissed the petition in CRM-M No. 1162-2020 (O M) so far as the Appellants are concerned. Appellants have approached the High Court seeking quashing of Complaint No. 26 dated 25.03.2014 filed by the second Respondent - The Insecticide Inspector, Attari, District Amritsar Under Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33 punishable Under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971. 3. On 10.02.2011, Insecticide Inspector, Attari, District Amritsar, inspected the premises of firm - M/s. Navneet Singh - on Railway Road, Attari, District Amri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shed. It was also the case of the Appellants that the necessary undertakings were already filed indicating the responsible officers of the quality control, as such the Appellants herein are not at all liable for prosecution and complaint was filed in a casual manner without examining the necessary aspects. It was also the case of the Appellants that the Magistrate has not followed the procedure prescribed Under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). The High Court, by the impugned order, has dismissed the petition so far as the Appellants are concerned while quashing the proceedings so far as the Petitioner No. 4 before the High Court, who was Godown Incharge of the firm. 5. We have heard Sri S. Gurukrishna Kumar, learned Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng complaint from the date of report of analysis of Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana was only upto 14.03.2014, however, the complaint was filed on 25.03.2014, which is beyond the period of limitation. Inspite of the same, the High Court has not considered the same in proper perspective. Learned Counsel, while referring to the provisions Under Section 24 of the Act, has submitted that the timeline for second report also is fixed, i.e., thirty days from the date of sending the sample, but, inspite of the same the Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Faridabad has delayed the report by seven months, which is in clear violation of Section 24(4) of the Act. Learned Counsel also has submitted that while issuing the summons, the procedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ratory at Ludhiana on 14.03.2011, we are of the firm view that the complaint filed is barred by limitation. It is not in dispute that report from Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana was received by the Inspector on 14.03.2011. Section 29 of the Act deals with the 'offences and punishment'. The Appellants are sought to be prosecuted on the ground of misbranding of the insecticide, i.e., Trizophos 40% E.C. It is the allegation in the complaint that upon analysis of the sample, same was found to contain active ingredient to the extent of 34.70% only as against the labelled declaration of 40%. Thus, it is a case of 'misbranding' within the meaning of Section 3(k)(i) of the Act and selling of such misbranded item is in viola ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2011 from the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana and the complaint was lodged on 25.03.2014 which is beyond a period of three years from 14.03.2011. The only submission of the learned Counsel for the State is that further report from the Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory was received on 09.12.2011 which is the conclusive evidence of the facts, as such, the complaint is within the period of limitation. We are not convinced with such submission made by learned Counsel for the State. When it is clear from the language of Section 469, Code of Criminal Procedure that the period of limitation shall commence on the date of offence, there is no reason to seek computation of limitation only from the date of receipt of report of the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
