Crl. Revision No.1934 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1934 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 26, 2009 State of Haryana .....PETITIONER Versus M/s Indofil Chemicals Company, Nirlon House, Bombay ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Partap Singh, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The State of Haryana has filed this criminal revision against the order dated April 9, 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby the respondent accused on a revision petition filed by him against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala has been ordered to be discharged from the alleged offence under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') on the grounds that the second part of the sample was not sent to the Magistrate before whom the proceedings were instituted and the respondent was served in the said complaint after the expiry of shelf-life of the insecticide, the sample of which was already taken. In this case a sample of Dithane-M-45 was drawn from the shop of M/s Saini Seed Store, Naraingarh on March 31, 1992. The Crl. Revision No.1934 of 2002 -2- respondent M/s Indofil Chemicals Company Limited was the manufacturer of that insecticide. On analysis, the said sample was declared misbranded because of the variation of 7.15%, whereas, as per the rules, the permissible limit of variation was 3%. The expiry date of the shelf-life of the sample was July, 1993. The complaint was filed on September 2, 1992. The accused were summoned on September 2, 1992, but as per the record, the service was not effected. A perusal of the record shows that no attempt was made to serve the accused through registered post. Only on August 26, 1993 non- bailable warrants were issued. By the time the shelf-life of the sample had expired. It is also admitted position that no sample out of three lifted had been deposited with the Magistrate. Therefore, in these facts, learned Additional Sessions Judge had come to the conclusion that the right of the accused under Section 24(4) of the Act to get the second sample analyzed was defeated and consequently he discharged the accused. The afore-stated facts have not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of these facts and the fact that the sample was taken on March 31, 1992 and since then the accused has faced the protracted trial, and keeping in view the minor variation in the sample, at this belated stage, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. February 26, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkg JUDGE