'Six-Year Delay In Lodging Complaint Against Misbranded Insecticide Helped Accused': High Court Directs Appearance Of Punjab Agricultural Dept Director
After "shockingly" finding that the complaint by Punjab's Agriculture department was filed six years after the receipt of the report finding "misbranding" of insecticide, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has sought a personal affidavit from the director of the department.Justice N.S. Shekhawat noted that in several other cases, it has come to the notice of the Court that despite receipt of...
After "shockingly" finding that the complaint by Punjab's Agriculture department was filed six years after the receipt of the report finding "misbranding" of insecticide, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has sought a personal affidavit from the director of the department.
Justice N.S. Shekhawat noted that in several other cases, it has come to the notice of the Court that despite receipt of the report of a public analyst and the sanction under the provisions of the Insecticides Act, the complaints are not instituted by the Insecticide Inspectors and the Chief Agriculture Officers of the concerned district for several years.
The Court said, "In all these cases, this delay is caused by the concerned officials to help the accused illegally, because the maximum sentence provided under the provisions of the Insecticides Act is two years and the complaints are instituted after a delay of 3 years."
These observations were made while hearing the plea of Parveen Kumar, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the impugned complaint filed under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rule 27(5) of Insecticides Rules, 1971.
It was stated that the Insecticide Inspector Surinder Kumar, had visited the shop of a dealer M/s Garg Commission Agent, and had drawn a sample of insecticides. In August 2011, after a period of four days, the sample was sent to the public analyst, State Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana for analysis and the same was found to be misbranded after analysis, in September 2011.
However, the Court found that "shockingly, the complaint was instituted before the competent Court on 23.04.2018, after a delay of 6 years, 06 months and 25 days of the receipt of the report of public analyst."
Consequently, the Court directed the Director, Agriculture, Punjab to file his personal affidavit mentioning the various details of each case, district-wise for the last five years:
While adjourning the matter for May 02, the Court also directed the Director to remain personally present.
Rakesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.
I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 109
Title: PARVEEN KUMAR DHAKA AND ORS V. STATE OF PUNJAB