Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1821 (RAJ)

R. K. Mathur v. State

2006-05-23

HARBANS LAL

body2006
Judgment Harbans Lal, J.-This misc. petition under Section 482, CrPC is directed against the Judgment dated 211.2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi in Cr. Case No. 63/2001 whereby he rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 204, CrPC. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that Insecticide Inspector inspected the premises of M/s. Handoli Kraya Vikaraya Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Hindoli, District Bundi on 20.09.1995 and took samples of Insecticides. A sample was sent to the State Laboratory and same was found sub-standard. A complaint came to be filed by the Insecticide Inspector against the petitioner and others under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The petitioner moved an application under Section 204, CrPC and submitted that proceedings against the petitioner may be dropped. The said application dismissed on 211.2002 by the learned Magistrate by the impugned order. 3. The petitioner has submitted this misc. petition inter alia on the grounds that impugned-order is illegal and not sustainable being contrary to the provisions of law as also to the facts of the present case. The learned Court below has failed to consider that alongwith the notices, no report of Analysis was made available to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Court on 14.08.2001. Till then, the shelf-life of the sample had already expired and the petitioner was prevented from exercising his right of rechecking of the sample under the provisions of Section 24(4) of the Act of 1968. No proper sanction is taken for filing the complaint against the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned-order be set aside and the proceedings as against him may be dropped. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also perused the relevant record. 5. It appears that the complaint was filed in the Court on 04.04.1996. The petitioner appeared before the Court for the first time on 14.08.2001. The complaint was filed after the checking of the shop was made on 20.09.1995. The complaint was filed after the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide. This Court in the cases of Aarti Mineral vs. State, 2002 (2) CrLR 348 (Raj.);; S.N. Chemical vs. State 2000 (1) RLW 343, M/s. Rallis India Limited & Ors., vs. State of Rajasthan, 1998 (3) WLC373 (Raj.); Crop Health Product Ltd. & Anr. The complaint was filed after the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide. This Court in the cases of Aarti Mineral vs. State, 2002 (2) CrLR 348 (Raj.);; S.N. Chemical vs. State 2000 (1) RLW 343, M/s. Rallis India Limited & Ors., vs. State of Rajasthan, 1998 (3) WLC373 (Raj.); Crop Health Product Ltd. & Anr. vs. State, 2005 (9) RDD 3464 (Raj.); Cyanamid Agro India Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2000 (2) RCC 1463; B.L. Agarwal M.D. Raj. Insecticides & Fertiliser Company (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2003 (1) RCC 206; M/s. United Phosphorus Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2002 (4) WLC 171 (Raj.) and M/s. BASF India Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2005 (1) RCC 77 has held that if the complaint was filed after expiry of the shelf life, the person concerned did not get opportunity of rechecking of the sample by the Laboratory and, therefore, he was entitled to get the proceedings quashed/dropped against him. In the instant case admittedly, the complaint was filed after the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide and, therefore, petitioner did not get the opportunity of getting the sample re-checked and, therefore, the continuance of this case as against him tentamounts to abuse of the process of the Court and the inherent powers of this Court deserve to be exercised in this case. 6. Consequently, this misc. petition under Section 482, CrPC is allowed and the proceedings pending as against him are hereby quashed and dropped.