The companyplaint was lad on March 25, 1989 for prosecution of the respondent in the Court of the Chef Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala.
Insecticide Inspector visited the factory of the respondent on August 18, 1988 and had taken two samples of Monocil from batch No.0319, manufactured in March, 1988 when the same was exposed for sale in August, 1989.
On receipt thereof, the respondent had given a reply on November 7, 1988 requesting the appellant to send the second sample to Central Insecticides Laboratory so as to enable them to adduce evidence in companytroversion of the allegations made against us you may please have the retained refer sample analysed by CIL, that was number done.
The Public Analyst in his report dated October 12,1988 reported that the ingredients used were 33.02 E.C. as against the specification of 36.
This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh made on March 13, 1992 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.6835 M A of 1991.
Admittedly, he had taken two samples thereof and sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst.
The admitted position is that the respondent is a manufacturer of Monocil, an Insecticide.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
Consequently, he opined that it was adulterated.
On receipt thereof, show cause numberice was issued on October 21, 1988 as to why the respondent should number be proceeded against for sale of an adulterated insecticide.
Accordingly, it was number in companyformity with the ISI specifications.
