Arvind Kumar Tyagi and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 4. i have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the relevant record as well as the authorities in the cases of tikayat kishan vikas kendra and ors. he has rather conceded that the case being covered by the judgment of the apex court as well as of this court, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.harbans lal, j.1. the present misc. petition under section 482 cr.p.c. by petitioners arvind kumar tyagi and m/s. jai shree agro industries ltd. seeks quashing of the proceedings initiated against them.2. briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioner no. 2 m/s. jai shree agro industries ltd. is a pesticide (insecticide) manufacturing industry and petitioner no. 1 arvind kumar tyagi is its employee. license under section 13 of the insecticides act, 1968 was obtained. the sample was taken on 21.7.1998 by the insecticide inspector and on examination it was found that it does not conform to the relevant prescribed specification as per the report of the analyst dated 10.9.1998.3. the notice was sent to m/s. kishan beej bhandar and also to petitioner no. 2 on 24.9.1998. reply to the said notice was given by petitioner no.2 vide letter/reply dated 5.10.1998 within 28 days praying for re-examination of the samples but the same were not sent for re-examination. after expiry of shelf-life on january 1999, complaint was filed on 9.9.1999 i.e. much long after the expiry of the shelf-life of the sample. petitioners therefore, have approached this court invoking its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of the proceedings launched against them.4. i have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the relevant record as well as the authorities in the cases of tikayat kishan vikas kendra and ors. v. state of rajasthan and ors. 2005 (9) rdd 3721 (raj) of this court and gupta chemicals pvt. ltd. and ors. v. state of rajasthan and anr. 2002 (2) wlc (sc) criminal 79 of the apex court.5. in m/s. gupta chemicals pvt. ltd. (supra), the hon'ble apex court has quashed the proceedings pending before the trial court on the ground that accused had applied to have the sample re-tested within time but the same was not got re-tested due to inaction on the part of the authority and in the meanwhile shelf-life of the sample expired. it was,.....