- (1.) The accused petitioners, who were the manufacturers and dealers of misbranded insecticide, have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.RC. with the prayer to quash pending proceedings against him in Criminal Case NO. 275/1991 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chomu under Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioners 1 to 3 are the dealers from whom the sample of the Insecticide known as "Phorate 10% Gr." was taken by the Insecticide Inspector Harnath Singh on June 15, 1989. In order to appreciate the controversy raised before me necessary relevant 'acts, In brief, may be given, which are as under:
(2.) The Insecticide Inspector, namely, Shri Hamath Singh visited the business premises of M/s. Sharda Agro Service Centre, Chomu on June 15, 1989 and in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 21(1) of the Act, he took sample of insecticide "Phorate 10% Gr." The sample was taken from petitioner No. 5 Shri A.K. Sharda who is said to be the proprietor of M/s. Sharda Agro Service Centre. After performing necessary formalities the Insecticide Inspector restored one part of the sample to the person from whom the sample was taken. One part of the sample was sent to the Insecticide Analyst I.e. State Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Durgapura, Jaipur for testing. The third part of the sample was produced in the court of the concerned Magistrate before whom proceedings were initiated in respect of the Insecticide. As per Insecticide Analyst's report dated 12th July, 1989 the sample was found to be misbranded as it did not conform to the prescribed specification. After receipt of the report of Insecticide Analyst's report upon the dealer in 15th September, 1989. From the record it appears that similar notice with a copy of Insecticide Analyst's report, was sent to the Manufacturer i.e. M/s. Artee Minerals Agro Chemical Division, Delhi by registered post on 14th December, 1990. After obtaining the requisite consent under Section 31(1) of the Act, the complaint was filed in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. Chomu on 27th March, 1991 and the same is pending in the said court for trial. In the meantime, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing present petition under Section 482 Cr.RC. with the prayer to quash the proceedings.
(3.) The only contention raised by Mr. J.K. Singhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in support of the petitioner is that the complaint was filed in the instant case on 27th March, 1991, i.e. much after the self-life period of the insecticide which was April, 1990. According to the learned counsel, by Inordinate delay in launching the prosecution, the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right to get another sample re-analysed in the Central Insecticide Laboratory (CIL) under Section 24(3) and 24(4) of the Act. Mr. Singhi also contended that so far the manufacturing firm and its partners are concerned, they were sent show cause notice alongwith a copy of the report on 14th December, 1990 which was after the expiry of self-life period of the insecticide and as such, the manufacturer and its partners had no occasion to get the second sample re-examined in the CIL within the life period of the insecticide. For the dealer firm and its proprietor It was contended that they received a copy of Analyst's report on 15th September, 1989 and within 28 days of receipt of the copy, they notified their intention to adduce evidence in contravention to the report of Analyst by getting another sample re-tested/re-analysed in the CIL. In support of his contentions Mr. Singhi referred to certain judgments of this Court and another High Courts namely; S.K. Ahuja v. State of Rajaathan & Others, [1990 Cr.LR (Raj.) 701] , U.S. Madan v. State, [1991 Cr.LR (Raj.) 799] ; M/s. Artee Minerals & Anr. v. State and Another, [1992 Cr.LR (Raj.) 59] ; Agarwal Khand Bhandar v. State of Rajasthan, [1993 Cr.LR (Raj.) 510] and Hindustan Ciba-Geigy Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors., [1995(1) WLC (Raj.) 124] .;