IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-1942 of 2008 Date of decision: 13th January, 2009 Murari Lal … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court, rendered in ‘Rajinder Kumar v. State of Punjab’ 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 244, to contend that he is entitled to protection of Section 30 (3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. Counsel has further submitted that it has not been denied that the license of the petitioner, which was suspended, has been restored and therefore he is covered by the ratio of law laid down in Rajinder Kumar’s case (supra). He has read para 27 and 30 of the judgment, which read as under: “27. However, there is one exception to the aforesaid legal position. If on the basis of the report of Public Analyst, in which the sample of insecticide taken from the dealer was found to be misbranded, the license of the said dealer had been suspended or revoked under Section14 of the Act by the Licensing Authority; and if such dealer filed appeal against that order of revocation and suspension of his license before Criminal Misc. No. M-1942 of 2008 the Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the Act and such authority had set aside that order by recording a finding that the dealer is entitled for protection available to him under Section 30(3) of the Act, as he sold the misbranded insecticide in the sealed container in which he acquired it and he stored the same in proper condition and cannot be presumed to know that the contents of the insecticide were misbranded. In that situation, the criminal complaint filed against such dealer by the Insecticide Inspector is liable to be quashed. As after recording the aforesaid finding by the Appellate Authority, the complaint filed against such dealer cannot be proceeded further as it will amount to misuse of the judicial process. Once the Appellate Authority under the same Act has accepted the defence available to the dealer, in the proceedings pertaining to the cancellation of his license and a finding to that effect has been recorded, then the defence available to the dealer in the criminal prosecution cannot be deferred till the final conclusion of the trial. In such situation, where the defence has been established before the Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the Act, criminal compliant filed against the dealer is liable to quashed by the High Court, in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 482 of the Code, as the continuation of such proceedings, after the recording of such finding by the Appellate Authority, will be an abuse of process of law. … … … … … … … … 30. We have perused the aforesaid judgment of this Court. In this judgment, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar’s case (supra) has neither been cited nor considered. The aforesaid observation made by the learned Single Judge of this Court is totally contrary to the ratio of law given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar’s case (supra), wherein it has been clearly held that the protection available to the accused dealer under sub-Section (3) of Section 30 of the Act is available in both the proceedings i.e. in the proceedings pertaining to cancellation of his license and his criminal prosecution for the 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-1942 of 2008 alleged contravention of the provisions of the Act. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent-State, in this regard cannot be accepted. It is, therefore, held that if the defences available to the dealer have been accepted in the proceedings pertaining to the cancellation of license by the Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the Act by recording a finding in his favour, then the criminal prosecution for the contravention of the same provisions of the Act cannot be allowed to continue and can be quashed by the High Court, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 482 of the Code.” Para 30 specifically states that if the defences available to the dealer have been accepted in the proceedings pertaining to cancellation of the license by the Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the Act by recording a finding in his favour, then the criminal prosecution for the contravention of the same provisions of the Act cannot be allowed to continue and can be quashed by the High Court. Order of the appellate authority has not been placed on record, from where it could be deciphered that defences available to the dealer have been accepted or not. Therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court. However, petitioner is permitted to raise all arguments, before the trial Court, relying upon the observations made in Rajinder Kumar’s case (supra). Trial Court shall look into this aspect on an application filed by the petitioner for discharge. Personal appearance of the petitioner, before the trial Court, shall remain exempted, subject to his filing an undertaking that he shall cause his appearance as and when required by the trial Court. He shall also file an undertaking that the evidence, if any, recorded in his absence but in the presence of his counsel, shall be binding upon him. The trial Court may incorporate any other conditions in the undertaking to be submitted by the accused. 3 Criminal Misc. No. M-1942 of 2008 With these observations, present petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE January 13, 2009 rps 4