- (1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaint No. 938-II titled as State of Haryana vs. Bhupinder R.Behl (Annexure P- 1) under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (the Act for short) and the rules made thereunder as well as summoning order dated 8.7.2003 (Annexure P-2) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the sample in question was manufactured on 16.1.2002 and its date of expiry was 15.1.2004. Notice was issued to the complainant on 12.3.2003 (Annexure P-6), after receipt of the report of the chemical analyst dated 3.1.2003 (Annexure P-5) that the sample drawn on 29.8.2002 was misbranded. Petitioners submitted their reply to the notice on 27.3.2002 (Annexure P-7). In the said reply a request was also made that the petitioners wanted to get the sample re-analysed. However, thereafter, the petitioners heard nothing about any action taken by the complainant. Petitioners received a registered letter from the complainant on 2.5.2008 (Annexure P-8) directing them to appear before the trial Court on 12.6.2008. By then the shelf life of the sample had already expired and hence, the right of the petitioners to seek re-analysis of the sample under Section 24 (4) of the Act stood frustrated.
(3.) In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners, has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd., 1999 4 RCR(Cri) 540, wherein, it was 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." ;