Karnataka High Court
Shri M N Pawar vs State on 24 February, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COSRT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCEEIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
fluted this arm 24"' Bay 0f13'ebrua:-y, .2909' 'V ' V'
Before
1132: EIONBLE MR JUS'T1'CE IIL?L?"}f¥*i:i3DI ca;-::§%111«(1:'.s;§'
Criminai Petifion
Between:
Sr}: M N Pawar, Directar
Quality Assurance See.d5;
Stocks & Exports, # 33 '
Banjara Hiils, Hyd§rab'3d __
4345 _V
Petitianer
{By Szi K R ;s;za:;di,";xxgt9.;,§'«:.;;,:A_ "
And:
State ~»~ by agxicuifiaa Ii:sp;¢'r:--.io19'=_ V
;1'u1<keri__;j ' A. ._
my :31'; G?)
Responéenf
.' Cri:fi§i1aE .T§Pétition is flied under S482 CLLPC praying fir:
' q§1as§1 thé««0rde.:'éa£eeci 19.8.2005 in cc 29252035 by the mm, Hukkeri.
_ V. ~ ?etiti0n coming on for Hearing this fizzy, 'tha C0111':
V' 4m§a«-zié: ($13 ffgiiowingi
W
QRDER
Petiticn is undar 8.482, Cr.P(3 seeking it) quash th£:.Vpf{'m%:edi§1gv$L'
pending before the mfisc, Hukkeri in cc 292;25é5'% 'whexgan;
dated 19.8.2(}{}S,,1camed Magistrate has cgxdered " . ~. "
Perused the gmuncis raised. Heard
In the gmmds raised, it i's# not been
served with the r6P<§I¥« 'ihe i.$V' gompliance of
S.16(}) of the Sefidé the shelf life
peried. for aileged vioiation
sf 3.7 sf " is also had and sought for
washing the 5&1?' . .. g
. 2 It i3_vl$é§r;,'é£part finm ebtaining the report on ths saznpic maize
sééds Exam the shag) of the: petiticne: on 24'11*2{}04,
V the saiiia wa s.s-criit fer testing :0 the Laboratory and the report" was
H " .'4"*-:'fi5tain>¢d ('}fi 'i3.12.2(}()5i. Thereafter, Show cause notice was issued to
»."£'§"l£'.¥A_V;V}1€>fifi;1}Il€f siating that gazmiizatien is only 83% as against the
% 'Viarmirihed stanéard cf 9{}% basfid on tha report {Bf the anaiyst fer which,
* "?repiy is fiver: by {he 3" accused stating that he is pleading guiiifiy.
fiosvever, the contention 9f the petiiipnar is that, camplaint is $3366
'V'
beyond tht: shelf life peried am} that there is nan-camplianca of $.15?
0f the Act and Anaiysfs report is not furnished to the accused. ' ' I'
All these aspacts could be urged by be'i'§feb'--¥_jj.e;vV
learned 'Magisuate. Ifthe complaint is fi1cd4beye«n:1'tize she1f 'iif¢"A'cf 211%
seeds and the copy of the analyst's "not "beat: ilié
petitioner by the respondent autiiérijy, 'it: f{>r,_the Ma€gi$fl'£1ie to
dose the pmcaedings far the violation far it __i,s Vi--'o§ to éispese cf the case in accordancC'1aé._r. % V \za;t1;;"%theJ'abm} e- hobsé&g«;ia:i:¢n;5V';;sti:£§:: 'is Elispescd of. ggéféé 1" 5"? my « xaiffg