AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Bali, J. (Oral)
Concededly, the sample of fertilizer was taken on January 16, 1990 and report of the Analytical Chemist was received on February 1, 1990 but the First Information Report against the petitioners came to be recorded on June 6, 1991 i.e. after 11/2 years from the date sample was taken from the petitioners. Single Bench of this Court in Nohar Chand Gupta v. State of Punjab, 1984(2) RCR 34 , quashed the FIR on the ground of delay. The sample of fertilizer in the said case was found to be adulterated and FIR was lodged after a delay of more than one year. Mr. Masih, learned Assistant A.G. Punjab, is unable to distinguish the judgment aforesaid wherein FIR was quashed on the ground of delay alone. However, he contends that there is ample explanation given in the written statement for lodging the FIR against petitioners after 11/2 years. The basic ground mentioned in the written statement is that the petitioners had filed an appeal against the order or cancellation of their licence and it is that decision which was being awaited. In considered view of this Court, it is hardly any ground to explain the delay as it is conceded position that there was no bar in lodging the FIR simultaneously.
There is absolutely no necessity to go into other question that even if the fertilizer was found to be nonstandard, no prosecution could be launched against the petitioner. Suffice it to say that learned counsel for her aforestated contention relied on Dr. S.N. Pandey v. State of Punjab, 1985(2) Recent CR 407.
For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed and FIR as well as subsequent proceedings taken against the petitioners are quashed.