HINDUSTAN PULVERISING MILLS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length.

(2.) THE short submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the facts and circumstances of this case, valuable right available to the defence of the accused has been taken away by negligence and irresponsible attitude of the respondent. To substantiate his submission, the learned counsel has referred to very limited facts. M/s. Hindustan Pulverising Mills, petitioner herein is the manufacturing of various insecticides and pesticides and M/s. Sham Beej Bhandar, Adampur, District Hisar is their dealer. The premises of the dealer were inspected and the sample of Dimethoate 30% EC bearing Batch No. 90 having manufacturing date i.e. Jan 1988 with expiry date December, 1988 was taken by Insecticides Inspector on 22.8.1988. Three samples were taken in accordance with law. One part of the sealed sample was sent to the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory (Insecticides), Karnal for analysis. On analysis, it was found to be misbranded and not adhering to the standard prescribed. After sanction, the complaint was filed by the Department on 3.1.1989 against the dealer only. After lapse of more than five years, an application was filed before the learned Magistrate praying that the manufacturer i.e. the petitioner should be summoned to face the prosecution in this case. Consequently vide order dated 1.6.1994, the learned Magistrate directed summoning of the present petitioner and summoned him for 8.8.1994.

(3.) IN view of the above facts, there cannot be any dispute that the life of the sample had expired on December, 1988 when the complaint itself was filed in Jan. 1989 and the petitioner was summoned in 1994. Under sub- section 4 of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, a right is given to an accused to make an application to the court or even the court on its own motion can direct the sample to be tested from the Central Laboratory. This statutory right provided under the Act has to be treated as weapon of main defence available to an accused, to show that the sample collected was not mis-branded or it was violative of the standards prescribed.