NORTHERN MINERALS LTD. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. Nos. 16697-M of 1993 and 7917-M of 1994 as the same emanate from the one complaint, quashing whereon has been prayed for in these petitions. The facts have, however, been extracted from Crl. Misc. No. 16697-M of 1993, M/s. Northern Minerals Ltd. v. State of Punjab.

(2.) ON receipt of the report from Central Insecticides Laboratory, which report was obtained on an application moved by petitioners through Court, concededly, it was found that the sample in question conforms to ISI specifications, though active ingredients were found to be more than 50%. It is conceded case between the parties and so also opined by the Magistrate dealing with the matter that there can always be a margin of + 5 and -3 in the active ingredients. It is once again conceded position that if this report is to be accepted by the Court ultimately, no offence shall be made out against the petitioners.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate dismissed the application primarily on the ground that the report of Central Insecticides Laboratory may be conclusive evidence but the same could be shown otherwise by cross-examination of Public Analyst, who tested the sample prior in point of time i.e., when the same was taken from the possession of petitioner. The very reading of the order impugned in the present petition shows that the same is contradictory in terms. Either the report of Central Insecticides Laboratory is conclusive and is per se admissible or the same is not. It requires to be mentioned that report from the Central Insecticides Laboratory was asked for by the Court itself, although on the application made by the petitioner and once the authenticity of the same was not in dispute, it could not be said that its contents could be proved wrong by cross-examining the Public Analyst, who gave the earlier report. It will be totally an abuse of the process of Court if petitioners continue to stand their trial before the Court which has to result in acquittal. Learned State counsel could not seriously dispute the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.