Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) THE instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dt. 22.08.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat City whereby he has upheld the order dt. 07.03.2002 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat in Cr. Original Case No. 66/1986 dismissing the application under Sec. 258 Cr.P.C. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the Insecticide Inspector, Sojat during inspection collected a sample of insecticide Aldrin 30% EC manufactured by petitioner No. 1 M/s. Gupta Chemicals Private Ltd. from its vendor M/s. Ambika Khad Vikreta Sojat for analysis. The insecticide was manufactured in November, 1984. The expiry date of the insecticide was October, 1986. Upon analysis of the insecticide being conducted, the State Pesticide Testing Laboratory by its report dt. 06.02.1985 opined that the sample did not conform to standards. Copy of the analysis report was supplied to the vendor i.e. Ambika Khad Vikreta, Sojat. The sanction for prosecution was granted on 30.05.1985 and ultimately a complaint for the offences under the Insecticides Act against the accused including the manufacturing company and vendor etc. was filed in the Court on 22.01.1986. The Court proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners and the other co -accused on the very same day. In pursuance to the summons issued by the Court, the petitioners appeared in the Court for the first occasion and filed an application on 23.10.1986 for sending the second sample of the insecticide to the Central Insecticide Laboratory (CIL) for re -analysis. The second sample of the insecticide was forwarded to the C.I.L. The analysis report of the second sample after analysis conducted by the C.I.L. on 24.03.1987 was received with the opinion that as the sample was containing 35.46 % insecticide content. Thus, the same was substandard.
(2.) THE petitioners herein filed an application under Sec. 258 Cr.P.C. in the Court below for dropping of the proceedings initiated against them. The learned Magistrate by the order dt. 07.03.2002 rejected the prayer and the Revisional Court by the order dt. 22.08.2006 has affirmed the said order. Now, the petitioner's have approached this Court by way of instant miscellaneous petition assailing the order rejecting the application filed by them in the trial Court under Sec. 258 Cr.P.C. and for quashing of all the subsequent proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioners in the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Section 24 of the Insecticide Act, all the accused including the Company against whom proceedings are proposed under the Act have a right of re -analysis of the second sample of the insecticide through the Central Insecticide Laboratory. He submitted that the right of re -analysis of the second sample of insecticide is an extension of the fundamental right of the accused to defend themselves. Learned counsel submitted that in this case, the petitioner company was given no information about the sample being substandard as the copy of the report of the State Pesticides Laboratory was not supplied to it and thus, the proceedings of the complaint are liable to be quashed. He placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Bharat Insecticides Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan reported in, RLR 1996 (1) 349 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Northern Minerals Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in : 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 729 in support of his arguments. He submitted that as the copy of the State Pesticide Laboratory's report was not supplied to the petitioner company, it was deprived of its right to challenge the said report timely by having the same sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory.
(3.) LEARNED counsel submitted that despite this hurdle, the petitioners immediately on appearing in the trial Court in pursuance to the summons issued by the Court, moved an application under Sec. 24(4) of the Act for having the second sample analysed through C.I.L. The sample was sent to the C.I.L. but the analysis thereof was conducted after the expiry of shelf life of the sample. Learned counsel submitted that in this view of the matter, the petitioners' right to challenge the report of the State Pesticide Laboratory by having the second sample analysed through the C.I.L. has been frustrated and thus the petitioners were deprived of the right to defend themselves. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted and the proceedings of the complaint going on in the Court below deserve to be quashed qua the petitioners.;