S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION No.1270/2003 M/s.Pesticide India Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 24.11.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE Mr.V.R. Bajwa, for petitioners. Mr. B.K. Sharma, PP for State. Reportable *** 1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case no.293/1993, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)-cum Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangod, District Kota, for the offence under Section 21(1)(A) of the Insecticides Act 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 3rd July, 1992, the Inspector Insecticides visited the premises of M/s.Sangod Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti, Sangod, District Kota and took a sample of Mithyl Parathion 2% Dust, Batch No.91-D- 82, for analysis. The date of manufacture of the insecticide was 28th November, 1991 and the date of expiry was 27th May, 1993. The sample was then sent for analysis to Analyst of Govt. Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Durgapura, Jaipur on 13th July, 1992. Later on, the respondent no.2 issued notice to the dealer as well as the manufacturer on 28th September, 1992, as per the Act of 1968. Likewise a show cause notice was also issued to the Distributor on 28th December, 1992. The petitioner-company replied to the notice on 8.10.1992. A prayer was also made by the petitioners for getting the sample analyzed by the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad under the provisions of Section 24(3) of the Act of 1968. Subsequently, the sanction of prosecution was granted on 29th March, 1993. After obtaining the sanction, the respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangod on 29th July, 1993. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 29th July, 1993 itself, a copy of which has been filed along with this petition. 3. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is to be noted that the order of cognizance passed on 29th July, 1993 had not been challenged by the petitioners under the normal procedure, but they filed this criminal misc. petition on 28th October, 2003 and a prayer has been made for quashing the entire proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioners have raised a number of objections against the prosecution lodged against them. But the fact remains that the order of cognizance dated 29th July, 1993 was never challenged by the petitioner and the same had become final. As per the judgment passed in the case of Session Judge, Sawai Madhopur vs. Dashrath Singh reported in 1996 RCC 592, an order of cognizance is a final order and the same is revisable under the code of criminal procedure. In place of challenging the order of cognizance by way of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the appropriate Court the petitioner have preferred to file this misc. petition u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to challenge the entire proceedings before the court below. 4. Needless to say, that in exercise of inherent powers of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which is of course to be done sparingly and in the rarest of the cases, there is a limitation that the same is not to done when a specific procedure is provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure for assailing the order aggrieved. In such a situation it would not be proper for this court to exercise the inherent powers so as to quash the proceedings. Moreover, the petitioners themselves were very much knowing about the earlier steps taken by the prosecution and about the filing of the complaint. But no steps were taken for challenging the complaint etc. in the year 1993 and now it is only in the year 2003 that this criminal misc. petition for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings pending before the court below. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper that the petitioners may raise all their objections before the learned trial court at appropriate time and the same shall be considered by it in accordance with law. It may also be made clear that the order passed by this court today shall not come in the way of the petitioners to raise all their legal objections before the court concerned. In support of this view, a reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxinarayan & Ors. vs. North East Securities Ltd. & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 447 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- “By the impugned judgment a prayer made in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) was rejected. On going through the orders of the High Court we find no infirmity in the conclusions arrived at. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that in a connected matter the Court while considering whether charge is to be framed discharged accused persons, the appellants and that too in a case which involved same parties. Mere dismissal of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not take away the right of an accused to place materials at the time when the question of framing of charge is taken up to show that the materials do not justify framing of charge. It shall be open to the appellants to place such materials as are legally permissible to be placed before the court when the question of framing charge is taken up by the court concerned. We express no opinion upon the aspect. The appeal is accordingly disposed of”. 6. Consequently, this criminal misc. petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. So far as the summoning of the petitioners is concerned, they undertake to be present before the learned trial court and in case a just cause is shown by any of them for exemption then appropriate application may be filed which shall be decided by the trial court. The petitioners are directed to appear before the trial court for further proceedings on 15th December, 2008. The record of the trial court shall be sent forthwith. (Raghuvendra S. Rathore)J. Sanjay Item No.s/18