GOEL & CO. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners seeking the quashment of the criminal complaint under the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Insecticides Rules, 1971.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the petitioners had applied for re-analysis of the sample within the stipulated period to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, who had turned down the request on the ground that only the Court had the jurisdiction to send the sample for re-analysis. It has been submitted that by the time notices were received by the accused-petitioners to appear before the Court, the shelf life of the insecticide had already expired and as such the accused-petitioners could not exercise their option for re-analysis of the sample. Reliance has been placed on a judgment rendered by this Court, in Criminal Misc. No. 13538-M of 1999 decided on 17.5.2002.

(3.) FROM the perusal of the above, it would be clear that during the shelf life of the insecticide, the petitioners had applied to the Deputy Director of Agriculture for re-analysis of the sample by the Central Insecticide Laboratory. However, vide letter dated 31.7.1992, the Deputy Director of Agriculture had turned down the request of the petitioners on the ground that only the Court had the jurisdiction to send the sample for re-analysis. In my opinion, this plea taken by the Deputy Director of the Agriculture is just contrary to the provisions of Section 24 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 and the law laid down by this Court, in Criminal Misc. No. 13538-M of 1999 decided on 17.5.2002.