UDESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present criminal revision petition has been filed by Udesh Kumar partner of M/s Murria Khad Store, Kapurthala, against the order dated 22.3.1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby he accepted the revision petition of the State and set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. It was directed by the Revisional Court to frame charge against the petitioner in a complaint filed by the Insecticide Inspector.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that Balwinder Singh Insecticide Inspector, Kapurthala, inspected the shop of M/s Murria Khad Store, at village Sanghian, Tehsil and District Kapurthala on 20.7.1987, a licensed dealer of pesticides/insecticides having a licence at that time valid upto 31.12.1988. After disclosing his identity and verifying the stock, he selected three containers one litre each of Machettee Brand Herbicide (technical name 'Butachlor') for sampling. Price of two containers, one litre each amounting to Rs. 170/- was paid to accused Udesh Kumar. As per the stock register there were 20 tins of Machettee (Butachlor 50% EC). Necessary forms under Rule 33 of the Insecticides Rules 1971, (for short - the Rules) was prepared in the presence of Udesh Kumar and Harpal Singh Agricultural Inspector, Kapurthala Block, who attested the seizure memo. Each container of sample alongwith necessary form was sealed. Accused Udesh Kumar was given an opportunity to put his own seal on the sample as well as on the forms. He put the metallic seal of his firm on the three portions of the sample and the forms. The sample was taken in accordance with the procedure provided under the Insecticide Act, 1968, (for short - the Act) and Rules. Accused Udesh Kumar signed the relevant forms in token of inspection and withdrawal of sample according to the procedure. One portion of the sample was handed over to Udesh Kumar accused and the other two portions were brought to the office. Thereafter one sample duly packed and sealed was despatched to the Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Department of Agricultural, PAU Campus, Ludhiana. The report of the Analyst was received on 26.8.1987 which was to the following effect :-

(3.) THE grounds for assailing the order dated 22.3.1990 are that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he had no jurisdiction in law to direct the trial Court to frame a charge against the petitioner. It is contended that the sample was taken on 20.7.1987 and the report of the Analyst was received on 26.8.1987. The complaint was instituted on 16.8.1988. However, the sanction for instituting the complaint was given on 22.8.1988 by which time the sample had already expired in January 1988. In this manner, it is contended that he right of the accused to get the second sample re-analysed so as to controvert the report of the Insecticide Analyst stood defeated which has resulted in grave prejudice. It is also contended that no proper consent under Section 31 of the Act had been granted for instituting the complaint against the petitioner. Section 24 of the Act, the violation of which has primarily been alleged may be noticed. The same reads as under :-