NEW RYTHU FERTILIZERS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.758 of 2014 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is thus: The complainant is the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Atmakur, Kurnool District. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are partners of the firm - - M/s New Rythu Fertilizers. A.3 is the Manufacturing Firm of Pesticides situated at Alwal District, Rajasthan. Whereas, the accused No.4 is the person responsible for Quality Control of Accused No.3 Firm.

(3.) AGGRIEVED , the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4 filed the instant petition seeking quashment on the main plank of argument that the shelf life of pesticide i.e., Monochrotophos 36% SL ( Milphos) was expired by 12.07.2012 and the LW.1 drew sample on 06.08.2011 and sent for analysis and Analyst Report was served on the petitioner/Accused No.2 on 30.08.2011. Further, on 02.12.2011, a show cause notice dated 17.09.2011 was served on the petitioner/Accused No.3 by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool, to furnish the particulars of the persons responsible for manufacture of the said mis -branded product and petitioner/Accused No.3 vide Reply Letter dated 07.12.2011, informed that he was not satisfied with the result and wants to contest the contents of the Analytical Report. But inspite of it, the complainant even without mentioning about the said Reply Letter dated 07.12.2011, filed the complaint before the trial Court on 17.05.2014 which was returned on 19.06.2014 and represented on 28.06.2014 and ultimately the complaint was taken cognizance on 31.01.2014 and as such, long prior to the filing of the complaint and taking cognizance, the shelf life of the product was expired and so the petitioners/accused lost their valuable right of seeking to send another sample for analysis to Central Insecticides Laboratory (CIL) and hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners/Accused will amount to abuse of process of law and therefore may be quashed. They relied upon the following decisions: