BHARAT INSECTICIDES LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following relevant facts may be noticed in the first instance: A particular insecticide was manufactured on 5.12.2001 and its expiry date was given to be 4.12.2003. Sh. Azad Singh, Insecticides Inspector, SDA Bahadurgarh drew a sample from out of that insecticide on 19.12.2001. It was sent for analysis on 24.12.2001. Analysis report (Annexure P-1) was received on 08.01.2002. On the basis thereof, a show cause notice dated 14.01.2002 (Annexure P-2) was issued by the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Jhajjar. Reply thereof (Annexure P-4 dated 24.01.2002 was furnished by the petitioners whereby a specific prayer for re-analysis by the Central Laboratory was made. In response thereto, the Deputy Director Agriculture, Jhajjar replied on 4.2.2002 that the relevant request to be made by the petitioners to the concerned competent Court of law. After the grant of sanction to prosecute (which was granted on 13.5.2002), complaint was filed in the Court on 12.6.2002. The petitioners were served for appearance in the month of October 2002. Petitioner No. 2 filed an application on 13.11.2002 for reanalysis of the sample by the Central Laboratory. That application could not be decided for one reason or the other and it ultimately became infructuous as the shelf-life of the sample was over by the time that application came to be disposed of. It was, thereafter, that the petitioners filed an application dated, 07.1.2004 (Annexure P-8) for the dismissal of the complaint on an averment that the prosecution had become invalid on account of denial of the right of re-analysis of the sample from the Central Laboratory to the petitioner- accused. That application was dismissed by the learned Trial Magistrate vide order dated 23.7.2004 (Annexure P-10). The finding recorded was that there was no fault on the part of the complainant in the context and that the delay was attributable only to the petitioner who could not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

(3.) It requires particular cognizance that the first analysis report dated 08.01.2002 was forwarded to the petitioner-accused on 14.01.2002. Vide a reply dated 24.01.2002, the petitioner expressed inclination to get the sample re-analysed from the Central Laboratory. It was only on 04.02.2002 that the Deputy Director Agriculture, Jhajjar offered his response thereto. By that time, the statutory period of 28 days (during which an accused has to exercise its option) to get the sample re-analysed was over. The fault, thus, was squarely that of the complainant.