- (1.) THE petitioners are distributors of insecticides, sample whereof was seized by the Insecticide Inspector, begowal, on 20. 12. 1996. The product had been manufactured in December, 1995 and the self-life thereof was to be over in December, 1997. The analysis report was received on 28. 02. 1997. The analysis report was communicated to the petitioners vide letter dated 25. 04. 1997 (Annexure P-3 ). The petitioners responded vide reply dated 03. 05. 1997 (Annexure P-4 ). Vide it, the petitioners indicated that the analysis report was not acceptable to them. They requested for the re-analysis. The complainant/inspector did not act in the context. The prosecution was launched against the petitioners on 18. 08. 2000 (Annexure P-1 ). On the basis thereof, cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, kapurthala, who passed an order dated 18. 08. 2000 (Annexure P-2) summoning the petitioners to stand trial.
(2.) THROUGH the instant petition, the petitioners aver invalidation of the impugned prosecution as their legal right for re-analysis stood defeated on account of delayed filing of the complaint. Further plea, in the context, is that they had indicated their inclination for re-analysis vide letter dated 03. 05. 1997 (Annexure P-4) but no steps were taken in that behalf by the complainant.
(3.) LEARNED Deputy Advocate General, punjab, appearing on behalf of the State of punjab, argues that the re-analysis plea preferred in this matter was dismissed by the learned Trial Magistrate vide order dated 19. 11. 1997 which (order) has attained finality because it was not challenged in any higher forum.;