VIKAS BEEJ BHANDARS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this case seek quashing of the First Information Report on the ground that the requirement of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act had not been complied with. The relevant dates as given by the petitioner are as follows: On 5.8.1994 the sample of insecticide in question was taken. It was sent to the Senior Analyst Quality control Laboratory, Karnal. His report was that the sample did not conform to the ISI requirements. Eventually, the prosecution was lodged by filing the complaint on 20.1.1995.

(2.) I may be mentioned that as per the complaint a notice regarding the report of Analysis had been served on M/s. Vikas Beej Bhandar (accused No. 1). Similar notice was also said to have been sent to M/s. Gandhi Beej Bhandar (accused No. 3). The accused No. 2 and accused No. 4 are shown as proprietors of the accused Nos. 1 and 3 respectively. The notice was also sent to accused Nos. 5 and 6 who are the manufacturer and the Sales Officers of the manufacturers respectively. In so far as it pertains to the manufacturer and the Sales Officers, the matter had been taken up in this Court by way of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8333 of 1995. The Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.3.1996 allowed that petition, and consequently proceedings were quashed in so far as it related to the petitioners (manufacturer and the sales officer), in that case, it is now submitted that the case of the present petitioners should also be considered at par with that and the complaint should be quashed in keeping with the observations made by his Lordship in the said order. The question regarding the date of manufacture and date of expiry of this insecticide also assumes significance in this case. Though, in the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the question regarding these dates was accepted from the petition, it would be open to the trial Court to verify that aspect. It would also be open to the trial Court to verify whether these accused in response to the intimation regarding the report of the analyst, have made any communication and expressed their desire that the sample should be got analysed by the Central laboratory.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners argued that this Court would be in a position to quash the proceedings to curtail ordeal of facing the complaint. However, I find that it would be more suitable if these petitioners raise these points before the trial Court even at the initial stage. The petitioners would be at liberty to appear before that Court and raise those points even before framing of the charge. If the Court is convinced, it may pass suitable orders as would be found necessary.