Criminal Revision No. 197 of 1994 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 197 of 1994 Date of Decision: 06.02.2008 State of Punjab …Petitioner Versus M/s Bharat Pesticides Jalalabad Road Muktsar and Others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the Petitioner-State. None for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present case, respondents had filed an application for second re-test of the sample. The application was allowed. But the sample was rejected without analysis as there was a curfew in Hyderabad. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar, discharged the respondents and observed as under:- “...The report of the Laboratory was received on 27.11.90 that the sample was rejected without analysis as Hyderabad was under curfew from 30.10.90 to 5.11.90 whereas the expiry date of the sample was 31.10.90. The accused have filed this application for their discharge because their valuable right of retest of the second sample is lost. This application is replied by Criminal Revision No. 197 of 1994 2 the Deptt. denying the factum of curfew in Hyderabad. Even if there was no curfew on those days, the fact remains that second sample was sent for retest, but no report of retest has come till today. Under Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 if any accused notifies his intention for retest from Central Insecticides Laboratory, the sample should be sent for retest and report of that laboratory shall be conclusive evidence of the fact stated therein. In the case in hand, the accused had notified their intention to retest the second sample even before filing the complaint and after filing of the complaint before the expiry of shelf life of the sample. As the sample has not been retested a valuable right of the accused is lost in this case. As per Bhai Manjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1992(1) Crl. Court Judgment for 1957 by the time the accused came to know about the complaint, the product of which sample was taken was no longer effective. He could not avail of his right to get the second sample analysed as per law. It was held that he was deprived of his valuable right to get the second sample analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory. The complaint was quashed by our own Hon'ble High Court. In the case in hand, the second sample, has not been tested and the accused are not at fault in that behalf”. The order of discharge was rendered on 4.10.1993. Order of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar, suffers from no infirmity. Criminal Revision No. 197 of 1994 3 A valuable right had accrued in favour of respondents/accused. Retesting of sample may have gone in their favour. Shelf life of sample having expired, incurable prejudice has been caused to accused/respondents. Even otherwise to put accused/respondents on summary trial after more than 17 years, will deny speedy trial to them. No interference by the revisional Court is called for. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 6, 2008 “DK