Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 773 (PNJ)

Montari Industries Ltd. v. State of Punjab

2003-05-21

KIRAN ANAND LALL

body2003
JUDGMENT Kiran Anand Lall, J. - Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the complaint, Annexure P-1 is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that the petitioners have been prejudiced in their defence as they have been deprived of their valuable right to seek re-analysis of the third part of the sample from Central Insecticides Laboratory, through the intervention of the court, in terms of the provisions of Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (to be referred as, "the Act"). 2. The fact that the petitioners had, within 28 days of the receipt of copy of the report, duly notified in writing the Insecticide Inspector that they were disputing the correctness of the report of the Insecticide Analyst and they intended to adduce evidence to controvert this report, is not in dispute. Similarly, it has also not been disputed that by the time, the complaint was filed in court, shelf-life of the sample of insecticide had already expired. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd., 199(4) RCR (Criminal) 540, in which similar facts were involved, and the Honble Apex Court held as under :- "It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that the respondents in these appeals have been deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act. Under sub-section (3) of Section 24 report signed by the Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and shall be conclusive evidence against the accused only if the accused do not, within 28 days of the receipt of the report, notify in writing to the Insecticides Inspector or the Court before which proceedings are pending that they intend to adduce evidence to controvert the report. In the present cases Insecticide Inspector was notified that the accused intended to adduce evidence to controvert the report. By the time the matter reached the Court, shelf-life of the sample had already expired and no purpose would have been served informing the court of such an intention. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was, therefore, not conclusive. A valuable right had been conferred on the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and in the circumstances of the case accused have been deprived of that right, thus, prejudicing them in their defence. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was, therefore, not conclusive. A valuable right had been conferred on the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and in the circumstances of the case accused have been deprived of that right, thus, prejudicing them in their defence. In these circumstances, High Court was right in concluding that it will be an abuse of the process of court if the prosecution is continued against the respondents - the accused persons. High Court rightly quashed the criminal complaint. We uphold the order of the High Court and would dismiss the appeals." 4. Confronted with the above judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, learned Deputy Advocate General very fairly conceded that the present case is squarely covered by this judgment. Placing reliance on the above referred to judgment of the Apex Court, this petition is allowed, and the complaint, Annexure P-1, is quashed. Petition allowed.