Prithvi Raj v. State Of Punjab
#2#
! "
""
# !$"%
&'& "
"( "")
* (+$,
-
. * -
/ 0 / 1 /2
3 3 2
43
0 "+ "( "") 5
.5 0
4/ 0
3 .
- 5% 4 .
-
/6- 3
3
7
5
# 8 - 5
!
!"9
)+93% -
.
*
3 : 4 ; * 3< 3
1 /2
43
5
3
'= >
. 3 4
.
*
5
0 <
3 : 4
%
, 5
5
5
) ! 9
)+93% - 4 3 : ;
5 2
5 /
('( *
5 3:*?3 /* 4:
3
@
('( *
#3#
5
5
)
:
5
4
5 0
4
5
<
3
)"=)>
.
5
5 3 2
,:*? 5
5 4/ ?
5
dated ($ ("
"" as under:- Offence under Section Sentence RI/SI Fine RI/SI in default of payment of fine of the Insecticides Act RI for 02 years Rs.10,000/- RI for 02 months 4.
The petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the Court of .
3
5 4/ vide judgment dated "$ "((.
5.
The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the instant petition.
6.
The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the sample was manufactured on 17.08.2002. The petitioner was appointed as a Production Supervisor of the Manufacturing company namely, ('( * on 23.12.2002 as is apparent from the affidavit furnished by him in terms of the provisions of the Insecticides Act and which has been exhibited as Ex.P22. The sample was drawn on 02.01.2003. As the batch from which the sample was drawn was manufactured on 17.08.2002 and the petitioner had not yet been appointed as a Production Supervisor who was Incharge of Quality Control, therefore, no liability can be affixed upon him and his conviction is liable to be set aside.
#4# 7.
The learned State counsel does not dispute the factual position that the sample
*#,' was manufactured on 17.08.2002 and the petitioner was appointed as a Production Supervisor Incharge of Quality Control as per his affidavit dated 23.12.2002. He, however, contends that the offence stands established beyond doubt and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
8.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 9.
Admittedly, the sample was taken from a batch which was manufactured on 17.08.2002. The petitioner furnished his affidavit dated 23.12.2002 (Annexure P-6/Ex.P22) as per which he was Incharge of Quality Control. Quite apparently, when the batch from which the sample was taken and sent for analysis was manufactured, the petitioner was not the person Incharge of Quality Control. Therefore, no liable can be affixed upon him. 10.
In view of the above, I find considerable merit in the present petition. Therefore, ?
5
"
"$ "(( .
3
5 4 / ?
5
($ ("
"" 5 4/ -
<
5 5
) " $