BABULAL AGARWAL Vs. ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these Misc. petitions under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the question to be considered is whether the proceedings pending against the petitioners, who are manufacturers of the insecticides, should be quashed on the ground that the self life of the insecticide had expired before filing of the complaint against them or before they could be served in the case.

(2.) The contention of Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners, was that as the complaints were filed in the Court after the expiry of date of insecticides or the petitioners were served after the said date, the petitioners were deprived of their right of retesting of the insecticide by the Central Insecticides Laboratory under Sec. 24(4) of the Insecticides Act. Relying on the cases of M/s. Bharat Insecticides Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 (1) WLC (Raj) 657, Bayer India Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 WLC (Raj) UC 630, M/s. Agro Chemicals v. State of Rajasthan (S. B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 577/93) decided on 19-11-98, S. K. Ahuja v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 RCC 254 and Agarwal Khad Bhandar v. State of Raj, 1993 RCC 607. Mr. Garg submitted that the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners in the trial Court is abuse of the process of the Court.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, admitting that in some cases the complaints were filed after the date of the expiry of the insecticides, submitted that on the technicalities the trial of the petitioners should not be quashed.