Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 781 (PNJ)

Bharat Insecticides Ltd. v. State Of Haryana

2002-08-09

VINEY MITTAL

body2002
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s Bharat Insecticides Limited as petitioner No. 1 and Rakesh Kumar, petitioner No. 2, who is stated to be an employee of petitioner No. 1 at the relevant time. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the complaint, Annexure P-4 filed under Section 29(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (here-in-after referred to as `the Act). 2. As per averments made in the complaint the Insecticide Inspector visited the premises of M/s Saini Pesticides, Old Bus Stand Radour on December 3, 1996 and drew a sample of insecticide. On analysis, the aforesaid sample was found to be misbranded. Therefore, the complaint was filed against the aforesaid dealer and the present petitioner M/s Bharat Insecticides Limited who is the manufacturer of the aforesaid insecticide. 3. It is stated that the show cause notice, as per the provisions of the Act, was issued to the petitioner on December 31, 1996. Reply to the said show cause notice was given by the petitioner through registered cover on January 13, 1997. In the aforesaid reply, the petitioners challenged the report of the analyst and disclosed their intention to get the sample reanalysed from Central Insecticides Testing Laboratory. However, the complaint in question, was filed on June 26, 1997. The petitioners were summoned in the aforesaid complaint and they actually appeared after service on June 15, 1998. 4. As per averments made in the complaint itself, the insecticide was stated to be manufactured on January 27, 1996 and the date of expiry of the aforesaid insecticide was January 26, 1998. 5. Shri Arun Nehra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner appeared on June 15, 1998, the shelf life of the insecticide had already expired. On that basis, Shri Nehra further submits that a valuable right of the petitioner to get the sample reanalysed from Central insecticides Testing Laboratory as provided under the provisions of section 24(4) of the Act has been lost and therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be continued and the complaint itself is liable to be quashed on that basis. On that basis, Shri Nehra further submits that a valuable right of the petitioner to get the sample reanalysed from Central insecticides Testing Laboratory as provided under the provisions of section 24(4) of the Act has been lost and therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be continued and the complaint itself is liable to be quashed on that basis. For the aforesaid submissions, Shri Nehra has relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd., 1999(4) RCR(Criminal) 540. 6. From the perusal of the record, I find that the petitioners were served with notices and in reply to the show cause notices, they contested the analysis report and claimed retesting of the sample by the Central Insecticides Laboratory. As per the averments made in the complaint, the shelf life of the sample had already expired on January 26, 1998 i.e. much earlier to June 15, 1998 when the petitioner had appeared in the court. Under these circumstances, I find that the submissions made by Shri Nehra are very well founded and deserve to succeed in view of the law laid down in State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 7. Therefore, this petition is allowed. Complaint, Annexure P-4 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 8. However, it is made clear that the quashing of the complaint against the petitioners would have no effect or bearing against the remaining accused. The trial Court shall proceed with the case against the other remaining accused in accordance with law. 9. Since this petition has remained pending in this Court for a sufficiently long time, therefore, the trial Court is now directed to conclude the trial against the remaining accused expeditiously, but not later than December 31, 2003. Petition allowed.