CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 02 RAJ CK 0142

A.K. Goyal and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 4 February 2010 · Citation: (2011) 8 RCR(Criminal) 2911 : (2010) 4 RLW 3685

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 711 of 2003

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 383 words

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.—This Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed by the Petitioners u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 226/1992 State of Rajasthan v. Ballabh Ram Gupta and Ors. u/s 29 of the Insecticides Act and also against the order dated 24.2.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, by which the application u/s 24(4) of Insecticides Act was rejected and charge has been framed on 20.6.2003.

2.

Without going into merits of the case, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance upon following judgments:

(1) Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in WLN (Raj.) UC (2000) 22

(2) Chaudhary Krishi Udhyod and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. reported in RLW 1999(1) Raj. 117

(3) S.N. Chemicals v. State of Raj. and Ors. reported in RLW 2000(1) Raj. 343

(4) Babulal Agrawal and 9 Ors. v. Associate Director and Ors. reported in WLC (Raj.) (1999) 494

(5) Medicamen Biotech Ltd. and Another Vs. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector,

(6). Dharampal and Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan,

(7) Anu Products Ltd. and Ors. v. State reported in WLN (Raj.) (2000) 327

(8) Rallis India Limited and Ors. v. State of Raj. and Ors. reported in WLN (Raj.) 1998 (3) 373 : RLW 1998(3) Raj. 1498.

and requested the Court that without considering the judgments mentioned above, the learned trial Court has decided the application and hence, the order dated 24.2.2003 passed by the trial Court be quashed and set aside and the trial Court is directed to re-hear the application of the Petitioners and decided the same on the basis of the judgments mentioned hereinabove and other points if he raised.

3.

The learned Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed the submission: made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

4.

In view of the above, I set aside the order dated 24.2.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur and remand the matter back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur with a direction to decide the application of the Petitioners as afresh in the light of the aforesaid judgments. This Criminal Misc. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

5.

The Petitioners are directed to appear before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur on 22.2.2010.