CYNAMID AGRO INDIA LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT request, both the petitions were finally heard and are being disposed of by common judgment, because grounds of challenge to orders taking cognizance of offence punishable Under Section 29(1) of Insecticides Act, 1968 ('the Act') and issuing process against petitioners are one and the same.

(2.) CR . Misc. Petition 312/2001 Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against order dt. 5.9.95 taking cognizance of offence Under Section 29 of the Act and summoning petitioners in Cr. Case No. 217/95 pending before Addl. Chief Judl. Mag. No. 3, Ajmer.

(3.) ON 30.6.1994, in exercise of power Under Section 21(1) of the Act, Insecticide Inspector (Plant Protection), Ajmer inspected M/s. Rajasthan Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., manufacturing unit of petitioner -Co., at Ajmer and took sample of 'Thimet 10 -G (Phorate 10%)' with manufacturing date April, 1994 and expiry date October, 1995 and sealed in three containers each containing 250 gms whereof. One sealed container of the sample was sent for analysis to State Pesticides Testing Laboratory Bikaner, Jaipur which vide report dt. 25.7.94 showing active ingredient content to be 8.76% and since it did not conform to its specification; so was considered to be misbranded in view of Section 3(k) of the Act a copy whereof alongwith show cause notices was sent by Insecticide Inspector to petitioners in response whereof, petitioners sent their reply vide letters dt. 10th/12th and 18th August, 1994 denying report of State Pesticides Laboratory and intended to adduce evidence in contra -version of report dt. 25.7.94, as provided Under Section 24(3) of the Act.