1991 Supreme(AP) 359

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.RADHA KRISHNA RAO
Hoechst India Ltd., Bombay - Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. - Respondent
Crl.R C.No.463/91
Decided On : 09-05-91
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. M.S.R. Subrahmanyam

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code - Sec38 [b] [1] - Prosecution of accused for an offence under Sec, 29 [1] [a] of Insecticides Act - Application filed by Prosecution in trial Court to Include name of Analyst in memo of evidence and to Issue summons to him - Trial Court without considering application convicting accused - Appellate Court remanding appeal by accused for re-trial - Sustainable

       Held : When the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that due opportunity was not given to the prosecution by the trial Court by non-application of its mind and especially so in this particular case where charges of adulteration and misbranding of pesticide are involved concerning the lives of people and the material witness sought to be summoned was not summoned, the order of remand assailed in the revision cannot be termed as one passed only to give an opportunity to the prosecution to fill in the lacuna in its case to the disadvantage of the accused The order of retrial in this case cannot be termed as one passed only to fill in lacuna to the prosecution case or to allow the prosecution to adduce additional evidence Merely - because the prosecution was allowed to examine the material witnesses to prove its case, on the facts of that particular case the said order cannot always be as one passed enabling the prosecution to fill in lacuna its case

       CrlRC Dismissed