Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deki Nandan Khatore And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 27 May, 2010
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M- 28667of 2009
Date of Decision:May 27, 2010
Deki Nandan Khatore and others
---Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and another
---Respondents
Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
***
Present: Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioners
Ms. Shalini Attri, Deptuy Advocate General,
Haryana
***
GURDEV SINGH, J.
Heard.
Petitioners, Deki Nandan Khatore, Viney Kumar Churiwala and M/s Krishi Rasayan Export Pvt. Limited, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint (Annexure P-1) which has been filed against them by respondent No. 2 under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for having manufactured, stocked and sold mis-branded insecticides; namely Benomyle 50% w.p. and thereby violating Sections 3(k) and 17 (1)(a) of the Act and the summoning order(Annexure P-2). Crl. Misc. No. M- 28667of 2009 -2-
The samples of the above said insecticide were drawn from the premises of M/s Telu Ram Ram Chander, Gharaunda, on 28.8.1999 in the prescribed manner laid down in the Act. It was found that these insecticides were manufactured by petitioner No. 3-Manufacturing Company. One part of the sample was sent to Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad, and after analysis, was found to be mis-branded. Show cause notice was issued to petitioner No. 3 as required by the Act and they made a prayer for sending the second part of the sample to the laboratory for analysis.
The petitioners have come up with the present petition that the second part of the sample was never sent to the laboratory and the shelf life thereof has already expired thereby depriving the petitioners of their valuable right, which has been guaranteed to them. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the complaint is liable to be quashed on that score alone.
Reply to the petition was filed by the respondents and it is mentioned in that reply that request of the petitioners for re-analysis of the sample was received on 30.12.1999 and accordingly, the second part of the sample was sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad and on analysis, the same was found to be misbranded. No rejoinder has been filed to that reply.
At the time of arguments, the copy of the report of the said laboratory was shown. It stands proved from that report and the reply filed by the respondents that second part of the sample was sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad, well before the expiry of the shelf life Crl. Misc. No. M- 28667of 2009 -3- of the insecticides and on analysis was found to be misbranded.
There is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
(GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE May 27, 2010 PARAMJIT