Crl. Revision No.1934 of 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No.1934 of 2002
DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 26, 2009
State of Haryana
.....PETITIONER
Versus
M/s Indofil Chemicals Company,
Nirlon House, Bombay
....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
---
Present: Mr.Partap Singh, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana,
for the petitioner.
..
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The State of Haryana has filed this criminal revision against the
order dated April 9, 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala,
whereby the respondent accused on a revision petition filed by him against
the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala has been ordered to be
discharged from the alleged offence under Section 29 of the Insecticides
Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) on the grounds that the
second part of the sample was not sent to the Magistrate before whom the
proceedings were instituted and the respondent was served in the said
complaint after the expiry of shelf-life of the insecticide, the sample of
which was already taken.
In this case a sample of Dithane-M-45 was drawn from the
shop of M/s Saini Seed Store, Naraingarh on March 31, 1992. The
Crl. Revision No.1934 of 2002 -2-
respondent M/s Indofil Chemicals Company Limited was the manufacturer
of that insecticide. On analysis, the said sample was declared misbranded
because of the variation of 7.15%, whereas, as per the rules, the permissible
limit of variation was 3%. The expiry date of the shelf-life of the sample
was July, 1993. The complaint was filed on September 2, 1992. The accused
were summoned on September 2, 1992, but as per the record, the service
was not effected. A perusal of the record shows that no attempt was made to
serve the accused through registered post. Only on August 26, 1993 non-
bailable warrants were issued. By the time the shelf-life of the sample had
expired. It is also admitted position that no sample out of three lifted had
been deposited with the Magistrate. Therefore, in these facts, learned
Additional Sessions Judge had come to the conclusion that the right of the
accused under Section 24(4) of the Act to get the second sample analyzed
was defeated and consequently he discharged the accused.
The afore-stated facts have not been controverted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of these facts and the fact that the
sample was taken on March 31, 1992 and since then the accused has faced
the protracted trial, and keeping in view the minor variation in the sample,
at this belated stage, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned
order.
Dismissed.
February 26, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkg JUDGE