M YUSUF Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the accused petitioners, who are Manufacturers with the prayer that the proceedings of State vs. Abu Road Krishi Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Ltd. , Abu Road and Ors. (1) for the offence under Section 29 (1) (a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1968') pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Abu Road be quashed.

(2.) IT may be stated here that dealer M/s. Abu Road Krishi Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Ltd. , Abu Road and its Manager Gopi Kishan and its Salesman Ramesh Chandra are not party before this Court.

(3.) FROM perusing the record of the present case, it appears :- (1) That on 30. 11. 1991, sample of insecticide in question was taken by the Insecticide Inspector and Agriculture Officer (Plant Protection), Sirohi from M/s. Abu Road Krishi Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Ltd. , Abu Road, who was dealer and this accused is not party before this Court. (2) That the date of manufacturing of the insecticide in question was 4. 1. 1991 and date of expiry was 3. 12. 1992. (3) That the said sample was sent to Insecticide Analyst, State Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and the report of the Insecticide Analyst is dated 15. 1. 1992, where it was reported that the sample was misbranded. (4) That thereafter, notices were given to both dealer as well as manufactures by the Insecticide Inspector, Sirohi. (5) That after obtaining sanction, a complaint was filed by the Insecticide Inspector and Agriculture Officer (Plant Protection), Sirohi on 22. 8. 1992 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road. (6) That on the same day i. e. on 22. 8. 1992, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the present accused petitioners and dealer and notices were issued to them. (7) That on 7. 9. 1992, Gopi Kishan and Ramesh Chandra appeared in the court on behalf of the dealer M/s. Abu Road Krishi Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Ltd. , Abu Road and presented an application with the prayer that the sample be got retested from the Central Insecticide Laboratory and that application was allowed and the learned Judicial Magistrate sent the sample to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad (Haryana) for re- analysis. (8) That report of the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad (Haryana) is dated 5. 11. 1992 where it was also reported that the sample was misbranded. (9) That before the period of expiry of the insecticide in question, the accused petitioners were not served with the notice of the Court.