- (1.) This miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the complaint and entire criminal proceedings in criminal case No. 80/1997 State of Rajasthan v. Paota Grah Seva Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Paota Dist. Jaipur (Rajasthan) criminal case No. 80/1997 arising out of complaint filed by Insecticide Inspector/Agricultural Officer (Plant Protection) Shahpura Jaipur for the offence under Section 29(1)(a) and (c) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and now pending before Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Kotputli Distt. Jaipur.
(2.) Facts giving rise to this petition are that a complaint has been filed against M/s. Paota Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Paota (Jaipur) and 6 others including the present Petitioner wherein it has been alleged that on 17.8.1994 Agriculture officer (Plant Protection) after inspection of M/s. Paota Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Limited, Paota drawn a sample of insecticide BHC 10% Batch No. 67 date of manufacturing June, 1994 and date of expiry May, 1996. One sample was sent for report to the Pesticide Laboratory Jaipur and as per the analysis report No. 1680-82 dated 17.10.1994, the sample BHC 10% Batch No. 67 date of manufacturing June 1994 and date of expiry August 1996 was found to be misbranded. Copy of the report was sent alongwith show cause notice dated 29.10.1994 to M/s. Paota Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Paota District Jaipur and also to the manufacturer Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. The Joint Director of Agricultural (Plant) Protection Rajasthan after perusal of documents and upon being satisfied granted sanction for prosecution on 29.1.1994. On the basis of the sanction, the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Kotputli took cognizance of the offence under Section 29(1)(a) & (c) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. It is alleged that the Petitioners have not received any summons till date but have now been informed that by an order dated 24.11.2000 Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Kotputli has issued warrants returnable on 19.1.2001. It is alleged that upon receiving show cause notice the Petitioner No. 1 vide its letter dated 16.11.1994 placed on record its disagreement with the analysis report sent by the Agricultural Officer, expressed their intent to adduce evidence in controversion thereof and made a request for reanalysis. Inspite of request for re-analysis the Respondents failed and neglected to present the matter before the Court for appropriate orders and failed to have the second sample re-analysis for conclusive results. The Petitioners have been deprived of their rights granted under Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act. It was submitted that the shelf life of the insecticide in question expired according to the Petitioners in May 1996 without any complaint having been filed before the trial Court. The complaint was admittedly filed on 13.5.1997 and represented on or about 23.8.1997. Thus the Petitioners were deprived of their valuable rights to have the second sample reanalysed for conclusive results. Reliance has been placed on Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.,1995 2 RLR 299, State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd., 1999 SCC(Cri) 1404 and Hindustan Ciba Geigy v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 2 RLR 514. The learned Counsel argued that the allegations made in the complaint ex-facie do not disclose any offences against the Petitioners. There is not even a whisper nor a shred of evidence to suggest as to how the Petitioners or either of them could have committed or is liable for the alleged offence. The learned Counsel further argued that to secure the ends of justice and to prevail the abuse of the process of the court, the complaint dated 13.5.1997 is liable to be quashed and set aside and the Petitioners are entitled to be discharged from all the proceedings drawn in the said complaint. Reliance has been placed on Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan, 1983 AIR(SC) 67, State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal,1998 2 RecCriR 608, KPG Nair v. Jindal Manthol India Ltd.,2000 CrLR 778. Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan,1995 2 RLR 298, Rallis India Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 3 RajLW 1498 B.L. Industries and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan,1990 RajCriC 371 Harshilla Lodha and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2002 3 RajCriC 1507.
(3.) On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the accused Petitioners and argued that the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate rightly took cognizance against the accused Petitioners after considering the material available on record.;