R. SRIKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R . Srikrishnan has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint No. 2502 dated 5.8.1999 (Annexure P-1) pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33 punishable under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 along with summoning order dated 5.8.1999 (Annexure P-2) and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution version, sample of pesticide dimethoate 30% EC manufactured by M/s. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., where the petitioner is working as Executive, Quality Control, was seized from the dealer by Assistant Plant Protection Officer and was found to be misbranded having 27.13% dimethoate as against the declared/labelled 30%. Accordingly, impugned complaint (Annexure P-1) under Section 29 of the Insecticide Act 1968 and the Rules made thereunder for violation of various provisions of the Insecticides Act, was instituted against the petitioner and the aforesaid manufacturer.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that for no fault on the part of the petitioner, he has been deprived of his valuable right to get the second part of the sample analyzed from Central Insecticides Laboratory, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted. There is considerable merit in the contention. The petitioner has a right to get the second sample analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad, so as to establish his innocence, but second part of the sample sent by Chief Judicial Magistrate, to Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad never reached the said Laboratory. The petitioner has thus been deprived of his aforesaid valuable right and, therefore, he cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offence on the basis of the report of Public Analyst alone.