w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Senthil Agro Products, rep by its Manager, S. Sivamurugan v/s S. Renuka Devi Agriculture Officer/ Insecticides Inspector, K. Paramathi, Karur

    Crl.O.P. (MD) No. 2724 of 2016 & 2816 of 2016

    Decided On, 28 March 2016

    At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court


    For the Petitioner: K. Angayarkanni, Advocate. For the Respondent: D. Muruganandam, Additional Government Pleader.

Judgment Text

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in S.T.C.No.3350 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur and quash the same in so far as the Petitioners are concerned.)

1. This petition has been filedto call for the records in S.T.C.No.3350 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur and quash the same in so far as the Petitioners are concerned.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

3. On 24.02.2015, the Agriculture Officer visited Senthil Agro Products Distributor/Dealer, No.1/5049/1, Rosalpatti, Virudhunagar (A3/1st petitioner herein) and took samples of certain insecticides in terms of Section 22(5) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (in short 'the Act, 1968), which, when analyzed, were found to be misbranded and was of substandard quality. The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Paramathi issued a show cause notice dated 20.03.2015 to the manufacturer/1st accused & petitioners herein. Since they have not given their explanation, a complaint has been lodged against four persons, including the petitioners herein for offences under Sections 3(k)(1) and 29(1)(a) of the Act, 1968.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Senthil Agro Products is a proprietorship concern and that the proprietor has not been made as accused and therefore, the prosecution should be quashed.

5. On reading of the complaint, it is seen that samples were lifted from Senthil Agro Products and after they were analyzed, a show cause notice dated 20.03.2015 by the Assistant Director of Agriculture was issued to Senthil Agro Products and they did not reply. Therefore, the complainant could not have known the constitution of Senthil Agro Products. In the complaint, one S.Sivamurugan, Manager has been made as the 4th accused and it is stated that he is representing Senthil Agro Products, which has been arrayed as 3rd accused. The petitioner has stated in the petition that one Mrs.Rajam is the proprietrix of 3rd accused and therefore, now it is open to the Trial Court to issue process to Mrs.Rajam under Section 204 Cr.P.C. or under Section 319 Cr.P.C. during trial.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Agriculture Officer had not followed the procedures adumbrated under Section 22 of the Act, 1968 before taking samples.

7. In the considered opinion of this Court, these are disputed questions of fact, which can be determined only during trial.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that a copy of the test report was not furnished to the accused as required under Section 24(2) of the Act, 1968 and therefore, the valuable right of the petitioners to have the samples re-tested has been denied to the accused.

9. It is seen that along with the show cause notice dated 20.03.2015, a copy of the tes

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

t report has been sent to the Senthil Agro Products and they have not elected for re-testing the same as required under Section 24(3) of the Act, 1968. 10. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.