SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeks quashing of a criminal complaint filed by the Insecticides Inspector. Samrala (Annexure P-5) on the ground that the right of the petitioner under Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for brevity the Act) to get the sample analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory has been snatched and his defence is completely prejudiced.

(2.) Facts in brief are that on 25/07/1995 the Insecticides Inspector took sample of Cypermethrin 25% EC, which was found to be mis-branded by the Insecticides Analyst vide his report dated 29/09/1995. The remarks given are that the sample did not conform to the relevant I.S. (12016-1987) specifications in the active ingredient test requirement. On the basis of the report of the Insecticides Analyst, the Chief Agricultural Officer, Ludhiana, sent a notice to M/s. Northern Minerals Limited, Rajindra Mansion, Ansari Road, New Delhi on 30/11/1995. The notice is alleged to have been despatched on 5/12/1995 and the same is stated to have been received on or about 13/12/1995. The Northern Minerals sent its reply on 26/12/1995 to the Chief Agricultural Officer, Ludhiana, expressing their intention to get the sample re-analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory in accordance with the right given to it by Section 24(4) of the Act. Consent to prosecute the Northern Minerals through the petitioner was accorded by the Additional Director, Agriculture on 12/09/1996 and the complaint was filed on 28/09/1996.

(3.) In the reply, the facts have not been controverted and it is conceded position that on 26/12/1995 after the receipt of reply from the Northern Minerals, the sample was not sent for re-analysis by the Central Insecticides Laboratory. Therefore, the shelf life of the sample expired in September, 1996.