CRM No. M-25275 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-25275 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.11.2011 M/s Insecticide India Ltd and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Arun Chandra, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioners, while taking me to paragraph No.10 of the copy of the complaint (Annexure P-7), has argued that the second sample was sent for reanalysis by appellate authority; The analysis report was received on 21.2.2007 in the office of CAO, Mansa, and according to reanalysis report, sample was found according to specifications, therefore, pendency of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of law. Learned counsel has further argued that now case is fixed for consideration of the charges for 26.11.2011. Learned counsel, while placing reliance on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M/s Jai Shree Rasayan Udyog & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab in Crl. Misc. No.33538-M of 2007 dated 3.2.2009, has argued that if second sample was found as per specifications then accused should not CRM No. M-25275 of 2011 (O&M) -2- be asked to face the trial. Since case is fixed for consideration of the charges, it goes without saying that learned trial Court shall take into consideration assertions made in paragraph No.10 of the complaint as well as judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Jai Shree (supra). If learned trial Court finds that second sample was found as per specifications, it may pass appropriate order discharging the accused. Petition stands disposed of. (Alok Singh) Judge November 16, 2011 R.S.