SWASTIK PESTICIDES LTD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner original accused Nos. 3 to 6 have prayed for an appropriate order to quash and set side the complaint being Criminal Case No. 652 of 2006 filed and pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himatnagar by which the respondent No.2 original complainant filed complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 3(k)(1), 17(1)(a) and 18(1)(c) of the Insecticides Act, 1968.

(2.) A criminal complaint being criminal case being No. 653 of 2006, is filed by respondent No.2 herein Agricultural Inspector, Himatnagar against the petitioner and others in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himatnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 3(k)(1), 17(1)(a) and 18(1)(c) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are the manufacturers and marketers of various categories of insecticides and pesticides. Accused Nos. 4 and 6 are the responsible persons of the aforesaid original accused Nos. 1 to 3. The original complainant drawn sample of Phorate from accused No.1 M/s. Ankur Seeds and Pesticides on 04.08.2005. The said drawn sample was sent for analysis at the Government Analytical Laboratory and as per its report, the said sample was alleged misbranded. The original complainant supplied a copy of Government Test Analysis Report along with show cause Notice on 15.09.2005. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that vide letter dated 20.09.2005 within 28 days of the said show cause notice that controverted the said Government Analyis Report and requested for retesting as per the provisions of Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short Sthe Act, 1968 ).

(3.) Thereafter, Agricultural Inspector intimated the petitioners that the petitioners have no right to get the sample retested and it was informed to the petitioners that if they want to get sample retested, they have to approach learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himatnagar before the period of expiry of Shelf Life of Sample. That thereafter, impugned complaint came to be filed on 14.02.2006. The petitioners appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and submitted an application for retesting on 22.08.2006 and as per the direction of the learned trial Court, made further application on 18.11.2006. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that despite three retesting applications filed by the applicants, the Court has failed to proceed for retesting as per the provisions of the Act, as according to the petitioners - accused Nos. 3 to 6, the provisions as required under Section 22(6) and 24(4) of the Act has not been complied with and followed and therefore, the complaint was itself not maintainable. Therefore, the petitioners submitted an application for dropping of proceedings on 05.12.2006 and after giving opportunity to all concerned, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application for dropping proceedings for the reasons stated in the said order. Hence, petitioners original accused Nos. 3 to 6 have preferred the present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash and set aside aforesaid complaint.