Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 768 (PNJ)

Bharati Minerals Limited v. State Of Haryana

2002-08-07

VINEY MITTAL

body2002
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by petitioner for the quashing of the complaint dated April 26, 1994 under Section 29(3) of the Insecticide Act, 1968. The aforesaid complaint has been attached as Annexure P/1 with the present petition. 2. As per the averments made in the complaint, on March 3, 1993, Insecticide Inspector, Fatehabad, Distt. Hissar visited the premises of the dealer of the petitioner namely M/s. Punjab Seeds Corporation Fatehabad and took sample of the insecticide. The petitioner is the manufacturer of the said insecticide namely monocrotophose. Subsequently, on the analysis of the said sample, the insecticide was found to the misbranded and, therefore, a complaint was filed by the Insecticide Inspector on April 26, 1994. 3. Shri Verma learned counsel for the petitioner states that in fact as per the averments made in the complaint the manufacturing date of the insecticide was March, 1993 and the expiry date thereof was March, 1994. In these circumstances, Shri Verma submits that the right of the petitioner to have a re-analysis from the Central Insecticides Laboratory in terms of Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 has been lost. Shri Verma submits that once valuable right of the petitioner has been lost because of the delay in serving the show cause notice upon the petitioner and also delay in filing of the complaint, then the proceedings in the complaint are liable to be quashed. Mr. Verma relies upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd., 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 540 : [1999(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 399 (SC)] and Bayer India Ltd. and others v. State of Punjab and others (Crl. Misc. 28627-M) of 1998) decided on August 5, 2002 to support his submissions. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents on record. 5. I find that the submissions made by Shri Verma are fully supported by the aforesaid judgments. In this view of the matter, I quash the complaint Annexure P/1 against the petitioner. However, it is made clear that quashing of the complaint qua the petitioner for the reason stated above would have no bearing upon continuation of the proceedings against the remaining accused. 6. In this view of the matter, I quash the complaint Annexure P/1 against the petitioner. However, it is made clear that quashing of the complaint qua the petitioner for the reason stated above would have no bearing upon continuation of the proceedings against the remaining accused. 6. Since the matter has remained pending for a sufficiently long time in this Court, therefore, the learned trial, Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case as expeditiously as possible but not later than December 31, 2003.