High CourtsSingle Bench(2007) 03 RAJ CK 0089

M/s Rajasthan Insecticide and Fertilizers Company Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 22 March 2007

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.S. Rathore, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision Petition No. 1170 of 2005

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

3 paragraphs · 273 words

K.S. Rathore, J.—This revision petition u/s 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred against the order dated 24.09.2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura (Jaipur) in criminal case No. 234/99 whereby the trial Court has framed charges against the petitioners for the offence u/s 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968.

2.

The facts in brief are that on 15.01.1998, sample was taken by the Insecticides Inspector concerned from M/s. Rajasthan Agro Agency, National Highway No. 8, Shahpura (Jaipur) and the product of the sample taken was Malathion 5% Dust, Batch No. 36. This product was manufactured in March, 1997 and expiry date was February, 1998. The complaint was filed and cognizance was taken by the Judicial Magistrate against the petitioners on 14.05.1999. Having heard Learned Counsel for the respective parties, admittedly the sample of the product was taken on 15.01.1998 and same was received in the Laboratory on 19.01.1998. It is also not disputed that the test was conducted on 03.03.1998 i.e. after the expiry date February, 98. Admittedly, after one month of the expiry date, test was conducted and as such the report of such test cannot be a correct one with regard to the product seized by the Insecticides Inspector. Therefore, on the basis of the report submitted by the laboratory, case cannot be made out u/s 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. Thus, the trial Court has seriously erred in framing charge against the petitioners for the offence u/s 29(1) and thus the impugned order requires interference by this Court.

3.

Consequently, the order impugned dated 24.09.2005 is quashed and set aside. The revision petition stands allowed.