SUNIL KUMAR GARG,J. - (1.) This criminal misc. petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, who is manufacturer with the prayer that the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 79/85 (old) 1231/96 (new), State v. Rajesh Pesticides & Ors. for the offence u/s. 17(1)(A) r/w Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1968') pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rawatsar District Hanumangarh be quashed.
(2.) It arises in the following circumstances:- On 18.4.1985, a complaint was filed by Insecticide Inspector, Subject Matter Specialist (Plant Protection), Hanumangarh in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nohar against the present petitioner, who is Manufacturer and apart from him, against M/s. Rajesh Pesticides Store, Gandheli (Nohar) and its partner Bhanwarlal who are dealers of the insecticides in question. It was stated in the complaint that on 21.12.1983. Insecticide Inspector, Hanumangarh took sample of the insecticide BHC 10% dust from M/s. Rajesh Pesticides Store, Gandheli (Nohar) who was dealer and prepared the fard and in that fard of search, it was also stated that batch number of the insecticide was B 83- 310 and date of manufacturing was Nov. 1983 and date of expiry was Nov. 1985 and he divided the sample into three parts as required by law. One of the samples was sent for analysis to the State Pesticide Testing Laboratory Quality Control, Durgapura, Jaipur and the Insecticide Analyst, State Pesticide Testing, Laboratory Quality Control, Jaipur gave his report on 27.2.1984, in which it was reported that the sample did not conform to I.S. specification No. 561-1978 in active ingredient and hence, it was misbranded. When the sample was not found in accordance with the prescribed standard, a notice was given by the Insecticide Inspector, Hanumangarh to M/s. Rajesh Presticides Store, Gandheli (Nohar), from whom, sample was taken. After obtaining sanction for prosecuting present petitioner and dealers, the present complaint was filed on 18.4.1985. On this complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nohar vide order dated 18.4.1985 took cognizance against the present petitioner and others mentioned in the complaint for the offence u/ss. 17(1)(a) r/w Section 29(1)(a) of the Act of 1968. From the record of the lower Court, it appears that after taking cognizance against the present petitioner and others on 18.4.1985, summons were issued against the present petitioner and others for appearance, but the case was adjourned from time to time and sometimes they were not issued and sometimes they we issued, but not served and for the first time, the accused-petitioner was served on 4.5.1990.
(3.) In this petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner : (1) That since no notice alongwith-the report of the Insecticide Analyst was given to the present accused-petitioner by the Insecticide Inspector, therefore, he has lost the valuable right given to him u/s. 24 of the Act of 1968 to get the sample to be restested by the Central Insecticide Laboratory and thus, on this ground alone, the complaint should be quashed. (2) That date of manufacturing of the sample was Nov. 1983 and date of expiry was Nov. 1985 and till then the accused-petitioner was not served either with the Court notice or notice on behalf of the Insecticide Inspector and therefore, the life of the insecticide in question expired and in such circumstances the petitioner has been deprived of the valuable right to get the sample retested from the Central Insecticide Laboratory and thus, prejudiced his defence and hence, on this ground also, proceedings should be quashed. ;