IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No.28543 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 07, 2011 M/s Herbicides (India) Ltd., New Delhi & others ...Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners seek quashing of a complaint dated 8.1.2009 (Annexure P-12) filed under Sections 3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Section 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971. The petitioners also pray for quashing of the subsequent proceedings arising out of this complaint, on which the petitioners have been summoned to face trial by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. Counsel for the petitioners has primarily relied on the provisions of Section 38 of the Insecticides Act. Sub-sections (a) & (b) of Section 38 (1) are reproduced as under:- “a) the use of any insecticide by any person for his own household purposes or for kitchen garden or in respect of any land under his cultivation; b) any substance specified or included in the Schedule or any preparation containing any one or more such substances, if such substance or preparation is intended Criminal Misc.-M No.28543 of 2011 (O&M) :2: for purposes other than preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any insects, rodents, fungi, weeds and other forms of plaint or animal life not useful to human beings.” As per the counsel, any substance specified or included in the Schedule or any preparation containing any one or more such substances, if such substance or preparation is intended for purposes other than preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any insects, rodents, fungi, weeds and other forms of plant or animal life not useful to human beings, then the Act shall not apply. Whether the product would ultimately be used for destroying or repelling or mitigating etc. as given in Section 38 (b) of the Act has to be proved and established before the trial Court. On the basis of affidavit and averments made in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. it would not be appropriate for this court to scuttle the trial. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & others, 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 233, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not a short cut for trial. The submission by the counsel is that making the petitioners to face trial would be a long drawn process. Merely on this ground, the Court can not and should not quash the complaint, for which the petitioners have been summoned. All these pleas have to be established on the basis of evidence and can be so pleaded before the trial Court. These issues can not be adjudicated only on the basis of affidavit while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. Dismissed. November 07, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE