- (1.) THE instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the manufacturing company M/s. United Phospherus Limited and its Directors against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gharsana in criminal original No.478/94 dated 19.10.94 taking cognizance against the petitioners u/Sec.29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (in short, "the Act") hereinafter) and the present petitioners alongwith other accused were summoned.
(2.) HEARD Mr. M.K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.D. Kalla, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. As per averments and the complaint filed before the trial Court, Shri Mahesh Roop Rai, Insecticide Inspector on 28.8.93 took a sample of Fenvelrate 20% E.C. from the shop of M/s. Shiv Fertilisers, Gharsana District Sri Ganganagar. It was sent to Insecticide Analyst, Durgapura, Jaipur, who in his report dated 21.10.93 reported that the sample was mis-branded. The complaint was filed against M/s. Shiv Fertilisers and against sellers, distributors and manufacturers. Accused Girdhari Lal gave his appearance on 12.09.95 and Om Prakash and Gayatri Devi on 8.01.96. On 29.11.97, the accused persons Om Prakash, Girdhari Lal and Gayatri Devi moved an application u/Sec.258 Cr.P.C. to stop the proceedings against them for non-compliance of Section 33 of the Act. Relying on a decision of this Court in R.P. Gupta vs. State (1), the learned trial Court accepting the application stopped the proceedings against the accused persons who appeared before him on the ground that the accused were deprived of their right for re-analysis of the sample as the life of the sample had already expired before the service of process of the accused-persons. The sample in the case was taken on 20.08.93. It was manufactured in the month of January, 1993 and its date of expiry was December, 1994. The complaint was filed in the Court on 19.10.1994 i.e. after the expiry of the shelf-life of the sample and the present petitioners were summoned.
(3.) THE arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold: Firstly, that the accused-persons were deprived of their right for re-analysis of the sample. Secondly, there is no allegation in the complaint about complicity of the petitioners in commission of the offence. THErefore, the proceeding against the accused-persons are liable to be dismissed and it would be a futile exercise and the wastage of the public money and the time of the court to pursue such frivolous litigation. If the proceedings before the trial Court are being allowed to be continued, and it would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order of the learned trial Court and argued that the accused-persons cannot be discharged or acquitted on the sole ground and they are free to raise all these objections before the learned trial Court after their appearance. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his contention:- (1) State of Punjab vs. National Organic Chemical Industries (2); (2) State of Haryana vs. Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd. (3); (3) Nagpal Agro System vs. State of Rajasthan (4); (4) Bharat Insecticides Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan (5) (5) M/s. Gupta Chemical vs. State of Rajasthan (6); (6) Synamid Agro India Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan (7); (7) S.N. Chemicals vs. State of Rajasthan (8); (8) Babu Lal Agrawal vs. Associate Director (9); (9) M/s. Gupta Chemical Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan (10); (10) Bharat Insecticides vs. State of Rajasthan (11); (11) Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan (12); (12) Chaudhary Krishi Udhyog vs. State of Rajasthan (13) (13) Pesticides India Ltd. vs. State (14) (14) Bayer India Ltd. vs. State (15); (15) Hari Singh & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan (16) (16) M/s. Hargovind Rajkumar vs. State (17) ;