N.N. Mathur, J. - (1.) By way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners seek to quash the proceedings pending against them in Criminal Case No. 1027,1992 for offence under Section 3(1) read with Section 29 of insecticides Act, 1968.
(2.) Briefly stated that facts of the case are that on 2.10.1991, Insecticide Inspector Mani Ram inspected the firm M/s. Preet Pesticides, Khajuwaia in presence of proprietor Kashmir Singh and took sample of Monocrotophos 36% in presence of motbirs and paid its price Rs. 52. Sample was sent to laboratory for analysis under letter dated 7.10.1991. Said sample was found to to be misbranded as per the report of Public Analyst communicated under letter dated 18.11.1991. Thus, the inspector filed a complaint against the following persons:- 1. Kashmit Singh (Prop. of M/s. Preet Pesticides, (Dealer). 2. Nar Singh (M/s. Rajasthan Pesticides (Dealer). 3. Ashok Kumar (Nagpal Agro (Distributor). 4. Dinesh Nagpal (Nagpal Agro (Distributor). 5. Niranjan Das Nagpal (Nagpal Agro (Distributor). 6. K.L. Mathur (Partner Pest Chem Allied Ind. (Manufacturer). 7. Pradeep Kumar (Partner Pest Chem Allied Ind. (Manufacturer).
(3.) It is contended by learned counsel that learned Magistrate while taking cognizance has failed to consider the important fact that criminal complaint was filed much after the expiry of shelf-life of the insecticide product i.e., December, 1992, thereby they have been deprived of their valuable right to get the sample re-analysed by Central Insecticides Laboratory under Section 24(4) of Insecticides Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this court in Hindustan Ciba Gelgy Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1995 RCC 174 . I have gone through the judgment cited by the learned counsel. The controversy involved in the instant petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this court referred in he case of Hindustan Ciba Gelgy Ltd. (supra).;