IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-39739 of 2007 Date of decision: 3rd May, 2010 M/s Pesticides India and another … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioners were prosecuted in a complaint filed for offence under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) and rules made thereunder. For violation of provisions of the Act, the petitioners were summoned to stand trial. They moved an application for dropping the proceedings. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar on 16th August, 2005 had discharged the accused and had dismissed the complaint on the ground that valuable rights of the accused persons to get the second sample re-tested from Central Insecticides Laboratory stood defeated. The Court, in the concluding portion of the order, had observed as under: “9. In view of above discussed facts and circumstances of the case in hand, wherein on account of lapse on the part of the complainant, valuable right of accused persons to get the second sample retested from Central Insecticides Laboratory, has been violated as Section 24 of Criminal Misc. No. M-39739 of 2007 the Insecticide Act, 1968 has been defeated, there is no justification to further carry forward the proceedings of this complaint against the accused as on account of violation of mandatory provisions contained in Insecticide Act, the complaint cannot result into establishing any offence against the accused. Consequently, the proceedings against the accused are liable to be dropped. Accordingly, the accused Nos. 5 and 6 are ordered to be discharged and complaint is consequently dismissed. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. File be consigned to the records.” Sd/- Pronounced:- 16.8.2005 (Alka Malik) Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar.” State of Haryana had challenged the order of discharge of the accused by filing a revision petition in the Court of Sessions Judge, Hisar, which formulated an opinion that in view of the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal’ 2004(4) RCR (Criminal)-1, the summoning order could not be re-called. The Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide his order dated 11th January, 2007 (Annexure P-1), accepted the revision petition by observing as under: “11. Under the Code the accused could not seek his discharge. The provisions of Section 203 Cr.P.C. could not be invoked. In Dr.Ramesh Goyal’s case, it has been held that though the decision of the Apex Court did not limit the power of the Magistrate under Section 245 Cr.P.C. but since it was clearly observed thereunder that the aggrieved accused could only obtain the relief by resorting to Section 482 Cr.P.C. therefore, the remedy under Section 245 Cr.P.C. was not available. 12. In the present case the accused could not be discharged since they had been summoned after the Magistrate had applied its mind. The order of discharge could not be made as no stage had come. It would not be necessary to go into the other questions which have been raised. 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-39739 of 2007 Therefore, the order is set aside. The revision petition is accepted. The parties are directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar on 18.1.2007, who would proceed with the matter in accordance with law. File be consigned to records. The file of the lower Court be returned with a copy of judgment.” In the present case, accused had filed an application praying that since their prayer to get the second part of the sample tested was denied, therefore, the criminal proceedings could not continue against the petitioners and they were seeking their discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. on this ground. The Sessions Judge, Hisar had not applied its mind on the merits of the case. Relying upon the judgment rendered in Adalat Prasad’s case (supra) regarding maintainability of the application, the revision petition of State of Haryana had been accepted. The view formulated by the Sessions Judge, Hisar, prima-facie, is not tenable. The accused had not sought recalling of the summoning order. They made an application for dropping the proceedings on the ground that mandatory provisions had not been complied with under Sections 22 and 24 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 11th January, 2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hisar is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court of Sessions Judge, Hisar to decide the revision petition afresh on merits. With the observations made above, present petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 3, 2010 rps 3