IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 364 of 2008 Date of decision : September 23, 2009 Monsanto Chemicals of India Ltd. ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Manish Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Criminal Misc. No. 48361 of 2009 The application is allowed. Annexed statement of PW1 Amardeep Singh is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Criminal Revision No. 364 of 2008 Monsanto Chemicals of India Ltd. presently known as Monsanto India Ltd. has filed this revision petition challenging its conviction and sentence by both the courts below. The petitioner was tried for offence under section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 for violation of section 3(k)(1) thereof. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa vide judgment dated 7.6.2006 convicted the petitioner under section 29 of the Insecticides Act and vide order dated 8.6.2006 sentenced the petitioner to pay fine of Rs 25,000/- and in default thereof, authorised representative of the petitioner to undergo imprisonment Criminal Revision No. 364 of 2008 -2- for six months. However, fine amount was paid. Appeal preferred by the petitioner stands dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide judgment dated 2.11.2007. The case of the prosecution is that sample of Butachalore 50% EC manufactured by the petitioner was purchased by the Quality Control Inspector from the dealer M/s IFFCO Farmers Service Centre, Sirsa. The said sample was found to be misbranded as per report of Quality Control Laboratory as sample contained 47.31 % Butachalore instead of 50%. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that request of dealer to send second sample for retesting to Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad was not accepted by the Quality Control Inspector and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to acquittal. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Unique Farnaid P. Ltd, 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 540. The contention although apparently attractive, is devoid of substance. No such request for sending second sample for retesting was made by the petitioner to the authority and the petitioner, therefore, cannot take advantage of the request made by the dealer. In the case of Unique Farnaid (supra), it was held that if request by the accused is declined by the authority, the accused becomes entitled to acquittal being deprived of valuable right. In the instant case, however, accused petitioner never made any request for sending second sample to the Central laboratory. So the aforesaid contention does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. Criminal Revision No. 364 of 2008 -3- Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that report of the Analyst was never received by the petitioner. This contention also cannot be accepted because the petitioner did not lead any evidence in defence to show that the report of Analyst had not been received by the petitioner. Even the petitioner's authorised representative did not step into witness box to state so. On the other hand Quality Control Inspector while appearing as PW1 stated that the copy of the report along with notice was sent to the dealer as well as to the office of the manufacturing company vide forwarding letter Ex. PD by registered post. Admittedly the said notice and report were received by the dealer. There is, therefore, no reason why the same would not have been received by the office of the petitioner. It is correct that postal receipt has not been placed on record. However, Quality Control Inspector stated that postal receipt is available in the record of the Dispatcher. Moreover, the evidence has been appreciated by both the courts below and there is concurrent finding by both the courts against the petitioner. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 23, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'