Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 712 (PNJ)

Goel & Co. etc. v. State of Haryana

2003-05-14

V.M.JAIN

body2003
ORDER V.M. Jain, J. - This petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioners seeking the quashment of the criminal complaint under the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Insecticides Rules, 1971. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the petitioners had applied for re-analysis of the sample within the stipulated period to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, who had turned down the request on the ground that only the Court had the jurisdiction to send the sample for re-analysis. It has been submitted that by the time notices were received by the accused-petitioners to appear before the Court, the shelf life of the insecticide had already expired and as such the accused-petitioners could not exercise their option for re-analysis of the sample. Reliance has been placed on a judgment rendered by this Court, in Criminal Misc. No. 13538-M of 1999 decided on 17.5.2002. 3. In the present case, the sample was taken on 26.5.1992 in respect of the insecticide, which was prepared in April, 1992 having expiry date as September, 1993. It has been alleged by the petitioners that the petitioners had appeared in the Court on 27.10.1993 and by that time, the shelf life of the insecticide had expired and there was hardly any time for the petitioners to get the sample re-analysed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory. In the written reply, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent-State that the petitioners had applied to the Deputy Director of Agriculture for re- analysis of the sample but their request was turned down, vide letter dated 31.7.1992, stating that only the Court had the jurisdiction to send the sample for re-analysis. 4. From the perusal of the above, it would be clear that during the shelf life of the insecticide, the petitioners had applied to the Deputy Director of Agriculture for re-analysis of the sample by the Central Insecticide Laboratory. However, vide letter dated 31.7.1992, the Deputy Director of Agriculture had turned down the request of the petitioners on the ground that only the Court had the jurisdiction to send the sample for re-analysis. In my opinion, this plea taken by the Deputy Director of the Agriculture is just contrary to the provisions of Section 24 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 and the law laid down by this Court, in Criminal Misc. In my opinion, this plea taken by the Deputy Director of the Agriculture is just contrary to the provisions of Section 24 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 and the law laid down by this Court, in Criminal Misc. No. 13538-M of 1999 decided on 17.5.2002. 5. Furthermore, as referred to above, at the time when the petitioners appeared before the CJM on 27.10.1993, the she life of the insecticide had expired in September, 1993 and the petitioners could not have got the sample re-analysed through the intervention of the Court. 6. In view of the above, in my opinion, it would be clear that the petitioners have been prejudiced by not sending the second part of the sample for re-analysis, which has prejudiced the case of the petitioners. I am further of the opinion that the criminal complaint is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed and the criminal complaint qua the petitioners is hereby quashed. Petition allowed.