OM PARKASH AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by Om Parkash Aggarwal, Director-M/s Jai Shree Rasayan Udyog Ltd. 501, Gopal Heights, Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi, for quashing of criminal complaint No.169 dated 05.05.2007, for the offence punishable under Section 29 of Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Insecticide Rules 1971 (Annexure P1) as well as the summoning order dated 05.05.2007 (Annexure P2) passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal.

(2.) Learned counsel contends that the learned trial Court has taken cognizance on a time barred complaint. The maximum sentence of imprisonment which can be awarded for violation of Section 29 of Insecticide Act, 1968 is for two years; the sample was concededly drawn on 31.12.2002 and report from the Senior Analyst State Quality Control Lab (Insecticide) Karnal, was received on 31.01.2003, whereby the sample was declared as misbranded but the complaint was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate on 05.05.2007 i.e. after a lapse of more than 4 years. He further contends that the petitioner was allegedly a Director of M/s Jai Shree Rasayan Udyog Ltd. 501, Gopal Heights, Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi, but, it has no where been disclosed in the impugned complaint (Annexure P1) that the petitioner was incharge and responsible for day-to-day business of the said Rasayan Company and as such he cannot be prosecuted. Learned counsel has placed reliance on decisions in State of Rajasthan Vs. Sanjay Kumar, 1998 3 RCR(Cri) 846 ; M/s Kheti Sewa Centre, Ludhiana Vs. State of Punjab, 2003 1 RCR(Cri) 310 ; M/s P.B. Pesticides and another vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 2 RCR(Cri) 942 ; an unreported judgment of this Court in the matter of Neeta Nilesh Shah and another vs. State of Punjab and others in CRM-M-17786 of 2011 (decided on 04.12.2012); State of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajiv Khurana, 2010 3 RCR(Cri) 912; S.K. Jindal vs. State of Haryana, 2005 4 RCR(Cri) 68 and P.D. Garg and others vs. State of Punjab, 2014 2 RCR(Cri) 945.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State assisted by Mr. Naresh Kumar, Sub-Divisional Officer (Agriculture) Palwal, very fairly concedes that the samples were drawn on 31.12.2002 and thereafter the report from the chemical Examiner was received on 31.01.2003. However, the complaint was filed on 05.05.2007 after obtaining necessary sanction from the Director Agriculture and as such, there was delay in filing the complaint which be condoned and the petitioner be directed to be prosecuted. To rebut the submission of the learned counsel for the State, it was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the Director had accorded the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner and his co-accused vide his order dated 30.04.2003 (Annexure P-3) and even thereafter, the complaint was not filed within the limitation prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. and as such, learned trial Court was not competent to take cognizance. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, gone through the material available on record.