Crl. Misc. No. M-15946 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-15946 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 13, 2010 Sh.Yayavaram Nageshwar Parsad ........Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana .......Respondent ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint dated 8.5.2003, under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rules thereunder as well as summoning order dated 8.5.2003 (Annexure P-2). The complaint (Annexure P-1) reads as under :- “That the complainant is working as Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Narwana (Jind) and the complainant has been appointed as Insecticide Inspector vide Haryana Govtt. Agri. Department Notification No.4166-Agri-2(1)-93/13895 dated 26.11.95 u/s 20 (i) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 and rules made there under. The Crl. Misc. No. M-15946 of 2009 2 complainant is also authorized to launch prosecution under the above said Act and is a public servant as defined u/s 21 of the I.P.C. (2) That the complainant checked the stock and record of M/s Mohit Baeej Bhandar, Narwana on dated 18.9.92 and draw a sample of Deltamothrin 10% + Triyophos 35 % EC Batch No.42022, which was manufactured by M/s Aventis Crop Science India Ltd., Haechest Centre, 54-A Andheri Kurla road, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The sample was forwarded for analysis to the Senior Analyst Insecticide Lab. Chandigarh vide letter No.1271 dated 19.9.02. The Senior Analyst Insecticide Lab. Chandigarh in his report declared the said insecticide as mis-brander (copy attached). Intimation notice was issued to the dealer alongwith the analyst report vide this office letter No.285 dated 12.3.03. (3) That the said accused 1. Sh. Yayavaram Nageshwar Parsad, S/o Sh. Y.S.R. Shastri, Manager (Quality Control). 2. Sh. A.K. Prem Nath, Director of M/s Aventis Crop Science India Ltd., Horchest Centre 54-A, Andheri Kurla road, Andheri (East), Mumbai is a responsible person of the manufacturer and has violated Section 17(1) (2) and (3) (k) of Insecticide Act, 1968. (4) That the S.D.A.O. Narwana/D.D.A., Jind applied Crl. Misc. No. M-15946 of 2009 3 to the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Chandigarh for seeking his consent to institute pro section against committing an offence under the said Act alongwith record regarding this case vide letter No.372 dated 28.3.03 (copy attached). The Director of Agriculture, Haryana has accorded his consent (copy attached). (5) That the Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try case in view of the provision of section 31(2) of the said act. (6) That the complainant is a public servant and has multifarious duties and not in a position to attend the Court each and every date of hearing. So it is requested that the complainant may kindly be exempted to attend the court on such date of hearing and be allowed to be represented by Asstt. Distt. Attorney of the Court. The complainant will attend the court as and when directed by the Court to give the evidence. It is, therefore, prayed that the accused (i) Sh. Yayavaram Nageshwar Parsad, S/o Sh. Y.S.R. Shastri, Manager (Quality Control). (ii) Sh. A.K. Prem Nath, Director of M/s Aventis Crop Science India Ltd., Horchest Centre 54-A, Andheri Kurla road, Andheri (East), Mumbai responsible person of the manufacturer may kindly be summoned trial and punished according to the provision of Section-25 of Insecticide Act, 1968.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside as a perusal of the impugned order Crl. Misc. No. M-15946 of 2009 4 did not reveal that the Magistrate while summoning the petitioner had applied his mind to the facts of the case. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on decisions of this Court attached with the petition. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. There is no doubt that the summoning order passed on a complaint moved by a public servant must reveal that the Magistrate had applied his mind while passing the summoning order. However, in the present case, the Magistrate had not given any reasons in the impugned order at the time of summoning of the accused. The fact remains that the summoning order was passed on 8.5.2003. Thereafter the petitioner has not surrendered before the trial Court till date. The complaint in question has been filed by Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer, Narwana, who had been appointed as Insecticide Inspector, in discharge of his official duty. A perusal of the complaint reveals that when the stock manufactured by the petitioner was checked and was sent for analysis, the analyst reported that the insecticide was misbranded. Intimation notice was sent to the dealer along with analyst report. It was also stated in the complaint that the petitioner was the Manager Quality Control and he be summoned. Although, the impugned order is not happily worded but it appears that the complainant was present on the date the impugned order was passed and the Magistrate after going through the complaint passed the summoning order. Since the impugned order relates to the year 2003, it would not be in the interest of justice to quash the impugned order and direct the Magistrate to pass a fresh summoning order. Crl. Misc. No. M-15946 of 2009 5 I have gone through the complaint and it prima facie discloses commission of an offence by the petitioner. In these circumstances, no ground warranting interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) September 13, 2010 JUDGE Anand