Karnataka High Court
K K Tiwari S/O K Tiwari vs The State Of Karnataka By The Inspector ... on 20 March, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
pa
EEFORE
K.K.'I'i-4+-azi
S] 0. K.Tiwari
Age: Major
The E'statt'cv£'T%i{a:11iataAke:t
By Inspector for lnsecficitlcs. & Agric-':ultuIa1
R(;p;. by State Pui3lis:..Pzosccutor
. Highcaufl_B_ _w
' .001. Respondent
" '{t§jr--.Srt.vPi}}§:§ni1iji§1antha:ayappa. HCGP) 'I'hia.'Ciriminal petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C.. ptuyazig 1 ta quash the order dated 12.04.2002, in " G.;Q.N0."196/2002, on the file of the Owl! Judge (Jr.Dn.) as JMFC, Hiriyur and conaoquentiy quash entire proceedings pending 'therein & etc. This petition coming on forfinal hearing this day. the Court rrrde the foiiawing:
I'-J IIDIIIIH The petitioner as 4' V c.c.No.196/2002, pending for one-meg under section 29(1)(a) of the, Act, '(for * x' 'the Act'), on the file of JMFC at Hi:iy:u,haafi1edth1a;§§::a:io13itc;;;ue;;s1§v;-xoceedinge therein.
2. The gs;¢rgen¢a"d1'. thum-
On :__ and 2 p.m., msponden£'=.v::iai:@_ Noa.1 as 2 and of Monccrotcphoa and found it was kent given to accused Nos. 1 as 2. other.' vraa sent for chemical analysis. On A v «':.-._.='.... .c-u...r.! i..s.I_u.*..1..Ld... not in conformity with
-:":..;e.~:;..'~.. n..............1.' 1., 4;... .1¢.+..-I . fiieeag:-efcin ',I1I.2' . r1I..I.PIJ1ufi.'|@_y, names ......... 28.0'.7.29(.'|1 wem .1 no on o'".:m.2'"'1, petitioner _ alia contending Monccmtcpho, them in batch No.088AP79 we: tested and found in accordance with the specification. In the circumstances, petitioner wanted to adduce evidence to contravene test we¢~«~PW4'~ hi rnnrn-l-
Juno-um. I---an-rv-1-u _.c.--u-an-u-n-pet'-I raqiies'wu"' c*:6mpmumn'"'""'t to "*6: sum Laboratory for which there was ncfircsygaoizjyaet 9'3 xmp'In'innnt I1 11 ".ng_';fl On 10.04.2002 mxnpiaint Magistlatc took cognizance sffenpcsttt and issued summons on 27.06.2002. V 1
3. I for petitioner and H wfitianer. reigning on dccistcn "of in IL" "co: RAE' 521? (in the case of Dtiedan if/'s. Anup Pmciuai Ltd. and Vs. Kanmtaka). has made following A 'I'he£jj_ of pmduct was not sent to Central I1tsepticiis'.VLsbo1atory, though a specific request was made A' pstifioncr under section 24 of the Act. Thus. valuable
9. :1.' t "-
I;-.I.i|.a;_h to p¢_efit:ic_rn_t_=r u_:;t_l¢_=: ssctisn 24 of the Act wa, eahayw b" wmpkinant. The .-.2.-yL:y date cf tfisnwncmhaphes be-'H fi I avww-' in expiry of shelf-life of ivionocxotopllos. in -. jbreaeh statutory provisions, oontinuation: of before Court below is abuse oi'-pmeeseof _ V In a deasion of this iegoned-- 12001 {MR 5217 (in the ease of M/s.'HAnup Product Ltd. and another Vs. this Court has .4 fo. an :1-fl'enee for having found ._ ' -insecticide by name did not eonlbrm to the set _ _ in t_he'"Act theme is time schedule vieiatzingl in testing of the and of the Report by lzzse.-et.ieir.!e Analyst;
-- uferlfiling objections to the report and the to be followed in case sample had not tested by the Central Insecticide . Léiboratoiy. Where the sample is not tested by the Central insecticide and Where the challenged. the Court shall have to send it to the Central Insecticide Laboratoty as provided [under A w.c:g-"'"JZ"*-
Remit of the lnmticldes eon_-1 I hozatoms is V.' 1.313'-|w'Ifl t iii this case a prosec-at':-r:_-n __ mumnehw m Deeember L995 even shelf--1ife of the seized _ V February 1995. Hence the 7C sent for analysis Laboratory and the aocfieetio was of
- -.. :....1.-..:.... 1.' ": 19.. .1..:..;'.-- u';,3........... .ug1.u. I..l..Il.l.El 1 1: 'um; uieg uvicnfix. menu:
In the urequest was made to Centml Insecticide Laboratoxfi' _ The complaint was of shelf-life of Monocmtaophos. In View of "this, opinion. continuation of against petitioner before Court below V' -. n 5 :2 thin nvnn-nun " no-.«1_"~ _;r__._ _'____-.___-_.. _..1 .__;.:4.-___ :._ ..._......;_.:| rm..- U'; " 1 ilfilfizlulc, Ll PULIIIUII 15 EL'.$PII;I.II I I1 .3'pimoeetl'inga as they relate to petitioner herein. AA airaguredlas accused No.3 before Court below are quashed. W Sd/'I;
Iudgé