J.K. SEDHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present petition, which the petitioners have filed for quashment of the impugned prosecution, the following apparent facts may be noticed.

(2.) THE sample under reference was seized by the Quality Control Inspector, Fatehabad on 9.7.1999. The seizure was made from out of relevant article bearing batch No. B007 which indicated the manufacturing date to be October, 1998 and the expiry date to be September, 1999. Vide report dated 9.7.1999, the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory, Sirsa opined that it was the case of mis-branding as the sample did not conform to its active ingredients and the contents of the active ingredients were found to be 71.10% instead of 75% WP. A copy of the analysis report was forwarded to the petitioners vide letter No. 3596 dated 16.9.1999. It was received by the petitioners on 25.9.1999. In response thereto, the petitioners sent a letter dated 30.9.1999 requesting for the re-analysis of the second sample. The complaint was ultimately filed in the Court on 10.4.2000.

(3.) AS per the provisions of Section 29 of Insecticides Act, 1968, an accused in a such like case is entitled to exercise his option to get the second sample analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad within a period of 28 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the analysis report. In the present case a copy of the report was received by the petitioner on 25.9.1999. The shelf-life of the article was to expire on 30.9.1999. The complaint was filed in the Court on 10.4.2000 long after the expiry of the shelf-life of the sample. It is obvious that there was inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the concerned official in the launching of the prosecution in the Court. Further, it is also apparent that there was delay of about 9 days in the despatch of the copy of the analysis report to the petitioners.