{"id":248656,"date":"2009-05-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009"},"modified":"2018-12-16T23:36:59","modified_gmt":"2018-12-16T18:06:59","slug":"syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"Syngenta India Ltd. And Another vs State Of Haryana on 20 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Syngenta India Ltd. And Another vs State Of Haryana on 20 May, 2009<\/div>\n
Criminal Misc. No.M-20814 of 2007 (O&M)      1\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\n                        Criminal Misc. No.M-20814 of 2007 (O&M)\n                        Date of decision: 20.5.2009\n\n\n\nSyngenta India Ltd. and another\n                                                     ......Petitioner\n\n                        Versus\n\n\nState of Haryana\n                                                   .......Respondent\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\n\nPresent:   Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate,\n           for the petitioners.\n\n           Ms.Maloo Chahal, DAG, Haryana.\n\n                 ****\n\n\nSABINA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
           The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482<\/a><\/p>\n
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C<\/a>. for short) for quashing of<\/p>\n
complaint dated 13.3.2006 (Annexure P-1), summoning order dated<\/p>\n
13.3.2006 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,<\/p>\n
Karnal as well as all subsequent and consequential proceedings<\/p>\n
arising therefrom.\n<\/p>\n
           The case of the complainant as stated in the complaint<\/p>\n
(Annexure P-1), in brief, is that on 16.12.2004, the Quality Control<\/p>\n
Inspector, Karnal inspected the premises of M\/s Guru Trading
\n Criminal Misc. No.M-20814 of 2007 (O&M)        2<\/p>\n
Company, Shop No.9, Near BDO Office, Nilokheri (Karnal), who was<\/p>\n
having a valid licence, and drew a sample of Insecticide Metalaxyl<\/p>\n
8+ Mancozeb- % WP bearing batch No.SSP4HO44 manufacturing<\/p>\n
date August, 2004 and expiry date July, 2006. The insecticide was<\/p>\n
manufactured by M\/s Syngenta India Limited, 14-J Tata Road,<\/p>\n
Mumbai.    The sample was drawn in the presence of Sh. Bharat<\/p>\n
Bhusan responsible person of the firm. The purpose of taking of<\/p>\n
sample for analysis was informed to the dealer. The fair price of the<\/p>\n
sample was paid to the dealer. Three samples of 100 gram each<\/p>\n
were prepared. One portion of the sample was given to the firm from<\/p>\n
whom the sample was taken and the remaining two samples were<\/p>\n
deposited as under:-\n<\/p>\n
           (i) One portion of the sample was sent to the RPTL, NH-<\/p>\n
             IV-Faridabad, through Deputy Director of Agriculture<\/p>\n
             Karnal vide letter No.8694 dated 28.12.2004 for the test<\/p>\n
             or analysis as per rule 34 of the Insecticide rule 1971.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (ii) Another portion of sample has been kept for producing<\/p>\n
             before the Hon’ble Court as and when asked for as per<\/p>\n
             Section 22<\/a> (6) (ii) of the Insecticide Act, 1968.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
           After analysis, it was reported as per the analysis report<\/p>\n
that the sample was misbranded.         In the sample Metalyaxyl +<\/p>\n
Mancozeb having 8%+58% WP instead of 8%_ 64% WP with a<\/p>\n
variation of 5.20%. A copy of the report was sent along with show<\/p>\n
cause notice vide letter No.8451 QC dated 15.12.2005 to the firm
\n Criminal Misc. No.M-20814 of 2007 (O&M)        3<\/p>\n
and the manufacturing company. The reply of the firm was received<\/p>\n
on 30.12.2005 and reply of the manufacturing           company dated<\/p>\n
21.12.2005 was also received on 30.12.2005. The             Director of<\/p>\n
Agriculture, Haryana gave his written consent\/permission for<\/p>\n
instituting prosecution vide letter dated 27.1.2006, which was sought<\/p>\n
vide letter dated 15.12.2005. On the basis of the said complaint,<\/p>\n
petitioners along with other accused were ordered to be summoned<\/p>\n
by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal vide order dated 13.3.2006<\/p>\n
(Annexure P-7). Hence, the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
           Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the<\/p>\n
complaint as well as the summoning order are liable to be quashed<\/p>\n
as the mandatory provisions of the Act had been violated.          The<\/p>\n
Public Analyst had failed to submit his report within 30 days of the<\/p>\n
receipt of sample in terms of Section 24(1)<\/a> of the Insecticides Act,<\/p>\n
1968 (‘ the Act’ for short). The petitioners had reserved their right to<\/p>\n
seek re-analysis of the sample in question but the service was<\/p>\n
effected on the petitioners after the shelf life of the insecticides had<\/p>\n
already expired.\n<\/p>\n
           Learned State counsel has opposed this petition.<\/p>\n
           There is no dispute with regard to the facts of the present<\/p>\n
case. Sample in the present case was drawn on 16.12.2004 and<\/p>\n
was sent for chemical analysis on 28.12.2004 and the same was<\/p>\n
received by the Inspector on 8.12.2005. Consent was sought by the<\/p>\n
department from the Director Agriculture, Haryana, Panchula to file a
\n Criminal Misc. No.M-20814 of 2007 (O&M)            4<\/span><\/p>\n
case in the Court      against the dealer and manufacturer vide letter<\/p>\n
dated 15.12.2005 (Annexure P-9). The same was granted vide letter<\/p>\n
dated 27.1.2006 (Anexure P-6). Thereafter, the complaint was filed<\/p>\n
on 13.3.2006 after the receipt of consent. Show cause notice was<\/p>\n
issued to the petitioners on 15.12.2005. The reply submitted by the<\/p>\n
petitioners to the show cause notice is Annexure P-5 (colly) wherein<\/p>\n
they reserved their statutory right to adduce evidence in controversion<\/p>\n
of the analytical report of the Insecticides analyst. The dealer vide its reply<\/p>\n
dated 30.12.2005 (Annexure P7-A) submitted that the sample be got re-<\/p>\n
analyzed from some Central Insecticides Laboratory as per Section 24<\/a> of<\/p>\n
the Act and they were willing to pay the expenses incurred for the same.<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the<\/p>\n
service on the petitioners was effected in the complaint after the<\/p>\n
expiry of shelf life of the insecticides. As per Section 24<\/a> (4) of the<\/p>\n
Act, petitioners could make a request to the Court seeking re-<\/p>\n
analysis of the sample of insecticides.         However, shelf life of the<\/p>\n
insecticides has already expired by the time the petitioners were<\/p>\n
served in the complaint and appeared before the Magistrate. Their<\/p>\n
valuable right to seek re-analysis of the sample was lost. The<\/p>\n
authority did not get the sample re-analysed although a request was<\/p>\n
made by the dealer in this regard. The petitioners had also reserved<\/p>\n
their right to controvert the report submitted by the analyst whereby<\/p>\n
the sample was opined to be misbranded.\n<\/p>\n
            It has been held by the Apex Court in State of Haryana
\n Criminal Misc. No.M-20814 of 2007 (O&M)            5<\/span><\/p>\n
v. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd<\/a>.        1994 (4) RCR (Criminal) 540 that in<\/p>\n
order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested<\/p>\n
from the Central Insecticides Laboratory, it is incumbent on the<\/p>\n
prosecution to file the complaint expeditiously so that the right of the<\/p>\n
accused is not lost. By the time the respondents were asked to<\/p>\n
appear before the Court the      expiry date of the insecticides was<\/p>\n
already over and sending of the sample to the Central Insecticides<\/p>\n
Laboratory at that late stage would be of no consequence.<\/p>\n
           Para Nos.11 and 12 of the case of              Unique Farmaid<\/p>\n
(supra) are reproduced herein below:-\n<\/p>\n
           “11. Sub Section (1) of Section 30<\/a> which appears to be<\/p>\n
           relevant only prescribes in effect that ignorance would be<\/p>\n
           of no defence but that does not mean that if there are<\/p>\n
           contravention of other mandatory provisions of the Act,<\/p>\n
           the accused have no remedy. Procedure for testing the<\/p>\n
           sample is prescribed and if it is contravened to the<\/p>\n
           prejudice of the accused, he certainly has right to seek<\/p>\n
           dismissal of the complaint. There cannot be two opinions<\/p>\n
           about that. Then in order to safeguard the right of the<\/p>\n
           accused to have the sample tested from Central<\/p>\n
           Insecticides   Laboratory,    it   is       incumbent   on   the<\/p>\n
           prosecution to file the complaint expeditously so that the<\/p>\n
           right of the accused is not lost. In the present case, by<\/p>\n
           the time the respondents were asked to appear before
\n Criminal Misc. No.M-20814 of 2007 (O&M)         6<\/p>\n
          the Court, expiry date of the insecticide was already over<\/p>\n
          and sending of sample to the Central Insecticides<\/p>\n
          Laboratory    at   that    late   stage   would     be   of   no<\/p>\n
          consequence. This issue is no longer res integra. In the<\/p>\n
          State   of   Punjab       v.   National   Organic    Chemical<\/p>\n
          Industries Ltd., JT<\/a> 1996 (10) SC 480 this Court               in<\/p>\n
          somewhat similar circumstances said that the procedure<\/p>\n
          laid down under Section 24<\/a> of the Act deprived the<\/p>\n
          accused to have sample tested by the Central Laboratory<\/p>\n
          and adduce evidence of the report so given in his<\/p>\n
          defence.     This Court stressed the need to lodge the<\/p>\n
          complaint with utmost dispatch so that the accused may<\/p>\n
          opt to avail the statutory defence. The Court held that the<\/p>\n
          accused had been deprived of a valuable right statutorily<\/p>\n
          available to him. On this view of the matter, the court did<\/p>\n
          not allow the criminal complaint to proceed against the<\/p>\n
          accused.      We have cases under the Drugs and<\/p>\n
          Cosmetics Act<\/a>, 1940 and the Prevention of Food<\/p>\n
          Adulteration Act<\/a>, 1954 involving the same question. In<\/p>\n
          this connection reference be made to deisions of this<\/p>\n
          Court in State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal and others<\/a>,<\/p>\n
          1998 (2) RCR (Crl.) 608: 1998 (5) SCC 343 under the<\/p>\n
          Drugs and Cosmetics Act<\/a>, 1940; Municipal Corporation<\/p>\n
          of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram<\/a>, AIR 1967 SC 970; Chetumal v.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Criminal Misc. No.M-20814 of 2007 (O&M)         7<\/p>\n
          State of Madhya Pradesh & another, 1981 (3) SCC 72<\/p>\n
          and Calcutta Municipal Corporation vs. Pawan Kumar<\/p>\n
          Saraf & another<\/a>, 1999 (1) RCR (Crl.) 699: 1999 (2) SCC<\/p>\n
          400 all under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act<\/a>,<\/p>\n
          1954.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          12. It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that the respondents<\/p>\n
          in these appeals have been deprived of their valuable<\/p>\n
          right to have the sample tested from the Central<\/p>\n
          Insecticides Laboratory under Sub Section 4 of Section<\/p>\n
          24 of the Act. Under Sub Section (3) of Section 24<\/a> report<\/p>\n
          signed by the Insecticide analyst shall be evidence of the<\/p>\n
          facts stated therein and shall be conclusive evidence<\/p>\n
          against the accused only if the accused do not, within 28<\/p>\n
          days of the receipt of the report, notify in writing to the<\/p>\n
          Insecticides   Inspector   or   the       Court   before   which<\/p>\n
          proceedings are pending that they intend to adduce<\/p>\n
          evidence to controvert the report. In the present cases<\/p>\n
          Insecticide Inspector was notified that the accused<\/p>\n
          intended to adduce evidence to controvert the report. By<\/p>\n
          the time the matter reached the Court, shelf life of the<\/p>\n
          sample had already expired and no purpose would have<\/p>\n
          been served informing the court of such an intention. The<\/p>\n
          report of the Insecticide Analyst was, therefore, not<\/p>\n
          conclusive. A valuable right had been conferred on the
\n Criminal Misc. No.M-20814 of 2007 (O&M)          8<\/span><\/p>\n
           accused to have the sample tested from the Central<\/p>\n
           Insecticides Laboratory and in the circumstances of the<\/p>\n
           case accused have been deprived of that right, thus,<\/p>\n
           prejudicing them in their defence.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
           In the present case also the petitioners have been denied<\/p>\n
of their valuable right to adduce evidence to controvert the report<\/p>\n
submitted by the Analyst. By the time the petitioners were served in<\/p>\n
the complaint, shelf life of the insecticides had already expired. The<\/p>\n
petitioners had already notified in writing that they intended to<\/p>\n
adduce evidence to controvert the report in the reply to the show<\/p>\n
cause notice.\n<\/p>\n
           In these circumstances, the continuation of criminal<\/p>\n
proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court.<\/p>\n
           Accordingly,    criminal   complaint      dated   13.3.2006<\/p>\n
(Annexure P-1), summoning order dated 13.3.2006 (Annexure P-7)<\/p>\n
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal as well as all<\/p>\n
subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are<\/p>\n
quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                 (SABINA)
\n                                                  JUDGE<\/p>\n
May 20, 2009
\nanita\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Syngenta India Ltd. And Another vs State Of Haryana on 20 May, 2009 Criminal Misc. No.M-20814 of 2007 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-20814 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.5.2009 Syngenta India Ltd. and another ……Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-248656","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSyngenta India Ltd. And Another vs State Of Haryana on 20 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Syngenta India Ltd. And Another vs State Of Haryana on 20 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-05-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-16T18:06:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Syngenta India Ltd. And Another vs State Of Haryana on 20 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-16T18:06:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1661,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009\",\"name\":\"Syngenta India Ltd. And Another vs State Of Haryana on 20 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-16T18:06:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Syngenta India Ltd. And Another vs State Of Haryana on 20 May, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Syngenta India Ltd. And Another vs State Of Haryana on 20 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Syngenta India Ltd. And Another vs State Of Haryana on 20 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-16T18:06:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Syngenta India Ltd. And Another vs State Of Haryana on 20 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-16T18:06:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009"},"wordCount":1661,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009","name":"Syngenta India Ltd. And Another vs State Of Haryana on 20 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-16T18:06:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/syngenta-india-ltd-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-20-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Syngenta India Ltd. And Another vs State Of Haryana on 20 May, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248656","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=248656"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248656\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248656"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248656"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248656"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}