RAM KRISHAN MUDHOLKAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the submission of Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Apurva M. Gokhale, learned counsel on record for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, who is appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Gave anxious consideration to their submissions as well as the contents of the decisions that are relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Seeking to quash the proceedings that are initiated against the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.3 in C.C.No.784 of 2012 that is pending on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, the petitioner filed the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint itself is not maintainable as per the contents of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner, who is accused No.3 in the said Calendar Case, is unwarranted and therefore, the same has to be quashed.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that on analysis, the sample drawn was found to be misbranded and therefore, a complaint was lodged by the Agricultural Officer, Hyderabad, against the petitioner and others and therefore, the present petition is unsustainable.