AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Bali, J. (Oral)
M/s. Avid Pharmaceuticals and three others through present petition filed by them under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seek quashing of complaint (Annexure P3) and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, (Annexure P8) and all subsequent proceedings taken thereafter.
Brief facts of the case are that a sample of Monocrotophos, was taken and was sent to State Laboratory for analysis. Vide report dated July 28, 1992, it was opined to be misbranded. However, in view of the provisions contained in the Insecticides Act and Rules, the petitioners asked for retesting of the sample by Central Insecticides Laboratory and according to its report dated April, 23, 1993 the sample was found to be of specifications as given in the Rules.
3 It''s vehemently argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the report of Central Insecticides Laboratory is binding upon the prosecution and once the report has turned in favour of the petitioners, no meaningful purpose shall be achieved in prosecuting them as on the question of misbranding of the sample there will be no option for the trial Court but for to acquit the petitioners.
Mr. Masih, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, without disputing the contents of the report of Central Insecticides Laboratory and likely acquittal of the petitioners on that count, however, contends that the complaint also accuser the petitioners of having not labelled the sample as required under various provisions of the Rules and on that count at least, the petitioners can be convicted.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, this Court finds no substance in the contention raised by Mr. Masih, learned AAG, Punjab. It shall be seen from notice, Annexure P5, that all that was mentioned in the same asking for explanation of the petitioners was that the sample in question was misbranded. There was no allegation in the notice aforesaid that the sample in question was not properly labelled. That apart, the sample was taken way back in 1992. Petitioners have already gone through an agonising trial of 21/2 years. This petition is, thus, allowed. Complaint, Annexure P3, JUDGMENT Annexure P8, and all subsequent proceedings taken against the petitioners are quashed.