RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dt. 12-10-87 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh whereby he reversed the order of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Hanumangarh dt. 25-1-86.

(2.) Brief facts which give rise to this petition are that on 11-9-80 one Kundan Singh Gil, District Agriculture Officer, Hanumangarh collected sample of Methyle Parethon from Chawla and Company-petitioner No. 3, is insecticide Inspector. The sample was sent for Chemical Examination to Deputy Director, Quality Control, Durgapura, Jaipur on 12-9-80 which was reported to be misbranded. Shri Kundan Singh Gil, Ex. District Agriculture Officer, Hanumangarh after obtaining necessary sanction against the petitioners filed a complaint for the offence u/S. 29(1)(a) of the Insecticide Act on 25-9-82. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on 25-1-86. Being aggrieved by the order, the State filed a revision which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh on 12-10-87. Hence this misc. petition u/S.482, Cr. P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. N. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge is illegal on three counts; (i) individual sanction by name was not obtained, (ii) District Agriculture officer, was not authorised to take sample for that particular area and placed reliance on M. Ramaswamy v. State Crimes VI-1988 (2)-314, Lachhi Ram v. Inspector Insecticides, RLW-1979-149 : (1980 Cri LJ NOC 93 (Raj) P. R. Neelkanthan v. The State of Rajasthan, 1986 RLR 172 : (1986 Cri LJ 1811) and Salil Singhal v. State of Raj (S.B. Cr. Misc. Petn. No. 615/ 86) decided on 16-10-87 at Jaipur Bench, and (iii) the report was not delivered within 60 days thus it is violative of the provisions of S. 24 of the Insecticides Act and the entire proceedings against the petitioners amount to abuse of the process of the court.