HERBICIDES INDIA LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by M/s. Herbicides India Ltd. Is to the, complaint dated September 27, 1988, which has been appended as Annexure P-1 to this petition . The aforesaid complaint was filed by the State of Haryana under the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968. The averments made in the complaint are that the petitioner M/s. Herbicides is a manufacturer of the Insecticides and he had supplied the insecticides to his dealer M/s. Luxmi Beej Kender, Yamuna Nagar. A sample of the aforesaid insecticide was taken from the dealer on June 16, 1988. In the complaint the petitioner was summoned and served and consequently appeared on July 20, 1989. On the said date, he was released on bail.

(2.) Sh. Ravinder Chopra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the insecticide which was taken as a sample by the Insecticide Inspector on June 16 1988 was in fact manufactured in May 1988 and that when he was served and had appeared in Court on July 20, 1989 at that time shelf life of the sample had already expired and therefore the petitioner was deprived of his valuable right provided to him under Section 24(4) of the Act to get the said sample re-analysed from Central Insecticide Laboratory.

(3.) I have gone through the averments made in the complaint as well as the pleas raised in the present petition. I have also heard Sh. Ravinder Chopra Senior Advocate for the petitioner. From a perusal of Form IX. which is a report of the Senior Analyst. Quality Control Laboratory Karnal dated August 16, 1988, it is clear that the manufacturing date of the insecticide which was taken as a sample was of course May 1988 but the expiry date of the same was recorded as April 1990. In these circumstances when the petitioner was served and had actually appeared on July 20, 1989, then by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be suggested that his right to get the sample re- analysed had already lapsed because of the expiry of the shelf life of the sample. In fact the petitioner had at no stage after his appearance before the learned trial Court ever applied for the reanalysis of the sample. In these circumstances there is no force in the present petition which is dismissed.