Sh. Hanuman Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- hindu law -- custom: [vijender jain, c.j., m.m. kumar, jasbir singh, rajive bhalla & rajesh bindal, jj] alienation of ancestral property - punjab and haryana - held, in respect of state of punjab by virtue of punjab amendment act, 1973 there is a complete bar to contest any alienation of ancestral or non-ancestral immovable property or appointment of an heir to such property on ground that such alienation or appointment was contrary to custom. in punjab the property in hands of a successor has to be treated as coparcenary property and its alienation has to be governed by hindu law except to the extent it is regulated by sections 6 and 30 of the hindu succession act. in haryana, property in hands of successor has to be treated as coparcenary property as well as ancestral property...........of the test it was found that its active ingredient was only 21.08% and not 30% e.c. the insecticide inspector instituted the complaint alleging that the product was misbranded and the present petitioner has been impleaded in his capacity as the manufacturer. the accused nos. 2 and 3 named in the original complaint were the dealers of abhor, district ferozepur from whom the sample was purchased and it appears that accused no. 4 is a concern of new delhi from whom the dealer had received the product manfactured at the premises of the present petitioner. the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to sub-section (6) of section 22 of the insecticides act, 1968, which is reproduced as under:-'(6) the insecticide inspector shall restore one, portion of a sample so divided or.....

Judgment:
ORDER

J.B. Garg, J.

1. Hanuman Sharma, Marketing Manager of M/s Agro Chemicals Jaipur, Industrial Area Jaipur has moved this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and challenged the summoning order passed against him in a complaint under Sections 3(k), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules 1971. The main allegation in the complaint is that Aldrin 30% E.C. is manufactured by M/s. Agro Chemicals, Jaipur and when its sample was obtained on 22-1-1988 for a dealer of Abhor as a consequence of the test it was found that its active ingredient was only 21.08% and not 30% E.C. The Insecticide Inspector instituted the complaint alleging that the product was misbranded and the present petitioner has been impleaded in his capacity as the manufacturer. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 named in the original complaint were the dealers of Abhor, District Ferozepur from whom the sample was purchased and it appears that accused No. 4 is a concern of New Delhi from whom the dealer had received the product manfactured at the premises of the present petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Sub-section (6) of Section 22 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, which is reproduced as under:-

'(6) The insecticide Inspector shall restore one, portion of a sample so divided or one container, as the case may be, to the person from whom he takes it and shall retain the remainder and dispose of the same as follows :- (i) One portion or container, he shall forthwith send to the Insecticide Analyst for test or analysis; and (ii) the second, he shall produce to the court before which proceedings, if any, are instituted in respect of the insecticide.'

It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that it was mandatory that one portion of the sample was to be delivered to the person from whom it was taken and the omission to do so as had happened in this case shall be fatal to the prosecution. It has further been argued that even the requirement of sub clause (ii) of sub-sec. (6) of Section 22 of the Act was not fulfilled in this case. In Arun Kumar v. Food Inspector 1987 (1) FAC 229 it was observed that Wherein statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner it has to be done in that manner especially when there are some penal consequences likely to follow.

2. Besides, the sanction for prosecution, Annexure P. 2 on the cyclostyle form wherein even the date on which the sample was allegedly taken does not find mention and cannot be said to be a sanction by applying mind of the appropriate authority and in this regard reliance has been placed on State v. Shayam Lal 1987 (2) FAC 198 where also the date of purchase of the sample in question was not found recorded. This plea also could not be repudiated by the learned counsel for the respondent State of Punjab.

3. In view of the infirmities referred to above the present petition succeeds and the complaint is quashed as a whole. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Ferozepur be informed.