Tejinderpal Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab
!"!#$!% &'
!(#)*#+
,
*-!
&.
!/0"0&'
*#/1 ,
!20'%!#3*4 50'61 *'% &-1!#"
7!-0-0&'!#"
8"
510$ 51*'9!#
6#& 5!#$0/!
!'-#!
*'% *'&-1!# 7!-0-0&'!#"
:
; <
5 =
#6)!%
+
!" =
,
<
#*4 #
$
%&'
(
(
$ )
*
+ (,&-'./&
0
1 /23
20303 /4 /& '5 22
6 /57& 0 8 83 $ '40-3
6 /54/
(
( : 9 9 Page no.1 out of 9 pages
'-.5'./& 0
1 /%3
*
9
*
' 9
.%.&'./% 6 6 9
8"
510$ 51*'9!#
6#& 5!#$0/!
!'-#! $) 9 9
) )
$
%; " 0 + < =,3 $
9 ) './% 1) './7 ) 8"
%.!#- !/1'&4&60!"
$-< ;-%< ) 8"
>*%&%*#*
6#& 5/0!'/!"< ,
) 6
$ ) # 9 > ) ( 9 ,
9 .4.&'./% 0
1 %3 #
6 # 9 > ) $
( 9 ,
9
'&.&'./% 0
1 -3 $
$
(
$ *
$ 9
( 6 > ) ? ! ( 6 > ) ? ./.4'./- 0
1 /'3 $ )
)
$
'-.5'./& 0
1 /%3 $
20303 /4 /& '5 22
Page no.2 out of 9 pages
> ( : 9 9 '-.5'./&
2 (//&'&'./5
)
9$ @ $ ( /57%2'./5
) % 03
*
$
9 > (
9
'5
$ )
)
%7& ( (
) 9
)
.% )
)
) )
(ii) To support the contention, Ld. counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in CRM-M-3715-2023 titled as Sandeep Goyal and others Vs. State of Punjab decided on 8th May, 2023, in which reliance had been placed upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as M/s Cheminova India Ltd. and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2021(3) RCR (Crl) 750; and Sohan Singh vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-12926-2018, decided on 16.01.2023.
(iii) Ld. Counsel contends that as the case is covered by the statutory bar of limitation, so the same is liable to be quashed without any Page no.3 out of 9 pages
further inquiry, as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sirajul and others Vs. State of UP and another, 2015(3) RCR (Crl) 661. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer is made for quashing the complaint in question along with summoning order and all subsequent proceedings.
- 03
)
) )
$
$ )
0
1 /23 ) $
) $ #
( .&.''.'2
) $
$
6 )
/'/''.'2
( 9 ,
9
*
$ )
(
9 ,
/5.5'./4 $ 9 )
)
/7/.'./4 6 )
)
9)
)
03 >
1 $
%4. ( ( 6
$
9
( 6 > )
$
$ $
Page no.4 out of 9 pages
) *
9 Still further, it is contended that after applying the judicious mind, ld. trial Court rightly issued the impugned summoning order. 6 ) 9
)
)
B
)
7
) 4
'5
1
$
) $ ) $
$
"
C ) "
*
2/
& ,
9 $ )
)
%7&0'30 3 ( (
)
C
#
%75 ( (
"
C ) )
9
%4. ( ( )
$
< D%4. ?/4)"0&'
&.
-0@!
0'
/!#-*0'
/*"!"< 0/3 0'3 Page no.5 out of 9 pages
023 B
9 $ ) $
9
"
)
) *
)
0'
/&@3)-0'6 -1!
3!#0&% &.
40@0-*-0&', -1!
3!#0&% &.
")/1 '&-0/!
&#, *"
-1!
/*"!
@*+ (!, -1!
-0@!
#!A)0#!% .&# &(-*0'0'6 ")/1 /&'"!'- &# "*'/-0&'
"1*44 (!
!?/4)%!%< E1
6
9 *
"
)
)
$
$
"
) 1 0%3 1111F 5 $
.%.&'./% 6
'&.&'./% $
) $ $
9
)
#
$
%75 0/303 ( (
'&.&'./% (
$
'-.5'./& 9
.% ) '& )
/. #
>
G $
)
( 6 > ) ?
( 6 >
$
9
1 ) A
8 (
!"
# $%$&'()* *'
+),-% ) (
Page no.6 out of 9 pages
Sandeep Goyal and others Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and !"
# ' ) $ $ // D .' )
)
6 # 9 > ) $
'&.&'./%@ $
$
'-.5'./& )
) #
$ )
( 6 > ) $
.7.4'./- $
$
9
$ $
$ ) A
8 ( < "10. ---- We are not convinced with such submission made by learned counsel for the State. When it is clear from the language of Section 469 Cr.PC that the period of limitation shall commence on the date of offence, there is no reason to seek computation of limitation only from the date of receipt of report of the Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Faridabad. As per the procedure prescribed under the Statute, i.e., Insecticide Act, 1968 and the rules made thereunder, the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana was the competent authority to which the sample was sent on 17.02.2011, after drawing on 10.02.2011, and the report of analysis was received on 14.03.2011, as such the said date is said to be the crucial date for commencement of period of limitation. By virtue of the said report received on 14.
03.2011 which states that the active ingredient of the sample was only to the extent 34.70% as against the labeled declaration of 40%, it is clear that it is the date of offence allegedly committed by the accused. Merely because a further request is made for sending the sample to the Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, as contemplated under Section 24(4) of the Act, which report was received on 09.12.2011, receipt of such analysis report on 09.12.2011 cannot be the basis for commencement of limitation. The report of analysis received from the Page no.
Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana on 14.03.2011 itself indicates misbranding, as stated in the complaint, thus, the period of limitation within the meaning of Section 469, Cr.PC commences from 14.03.2011 only. In that view of the matter, we are clearly of the view that the complaint filed is barred by limitation and allowing the proceedings to go on, on such complaint, which is ex facie barred by limitation is nothing but amounts to abuse of process of law. ---- "
/' $ $ )
Sandeep Goyal (supra); Sohan Singh (supra) and also in (/44.-'./& 0,H3 !"
#
.-.''./5@ (/2-&'./& 0,H3 /0 !"
#
2..%'./5 /2 6
"
1 $
%4. 023 ( ( 1
$ )
/% #
$ ) 6 6
/5.5'./4 0
(,3 $ $
/7/.'./4
'& ) 1
E
'& ) 1
'-.5'./& .% )
)
/- $
)
*
9 Page no.8 out of 9 pages
6
) A
I ( +
1 !2" $%&-'()* *'
+)33&
) )
) * $
) *)
) ) 9
)
) /7
*
) )
* $
) *) /4 (
*
$ # 9
*
9
) *
9 )
)
*#/1 ,
=
J 9< KJ+
< KJ+
Page no.9 out of 9 pages