STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SARABJIT SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by judgment dated 23.09.2004, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon in Criminal Complaint case No. 48 of 02.04.1994, by which the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents accused persons of the charge, the present appeal was filed by the State of Punjab.

(2.) In support of the appeal, learned State counsel while assailing the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court, submitted that the trial Court fell in error in holding that it was necessary to furnish the copy of the report of Insecticide Analyst to accused No. 2 to 3B. According to him, Sub Section (2) of section 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act') contemplates delivery of such copy of the report only to the person from whom the sample was taken and not to accused No. 2 to 3B, who were distributors and manufacturer of the insecticide in question. He, therefore, submitted that Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act cannot be stretched to mean supply of copy of report to any other person. He further submitted that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there was no reason to acquit the respondents. Finally, he prayed for reversal of acquittal into order of conviction.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-accused persons opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The counsel for the accused submitted that the Insecticide Inspector did not even deposit the second sample, as provided under Sub Section 6(ii) of Section 22 of the Act. He, then, submitted that if the prosecution wanted accused No. 2 to 3B also to face trial before the Court and also wanted that they should be convicted, they were also entitled to challenge the report made by the Insecticide Analyst by asking the trial Court to send the second sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. Apart from the above, the second sample itself was not deposited in the Court. Therefore, there was no occasion for any of the accused much less accused No. 1 to request for testing of the second sample by the Central Insecticides Laboratory in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act, within 28 days of the receipt of copy of the report. He, therefore, submitted that the trial Court was fully justified in recording order of acquittal of the respondents-accused.