The above interpretation to Sec. 24
would be harmonious and in consonance to
the principles of natural justice. Applying the
aforesaid guidelines in the instant case, it
transpires that the Company-M/s. Bharat
Insecticides Ltd. and its Directors, who are
accused in the case, were not delivered a
copy of Insecticide Analyst's report, even
then in his reply dated 11.11.93 to the show
cause notice dated 27.10.93 of the
Insecticide Inspector the Manager (Quality11
Control) of the Company had requested the
Insecticide Inspector to get the second
sample of the insecticide re-tested in the
CIL, but no steps were taken by him in this
direction. The complaint in the case was filed
in court on 18.10.94 i.e. after the expiry of
shelf-life period of the Insecticide. The
cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate on 18.10.94 and process was
issued on the same day, with the result the
Company and its Directors had no occasion
to make a request to the Court to get
another sample tested in the CIL and as
such, they have been deprived of their
valuable right under sub-section (4) of Sec.
24 of the Act. The argument of the learned
Public Prosecutor that even after the expiry
of self-life period of the Insecticide, another
sample could have been sent to the CIL for
analysis can not be accepted. It is not
disputed that pesticide in the instant case
was effective for a maxium period of one
year from the date of its manufacture. It was
effective upto April 1994 while the complaint
itself was filed on 18
th October, 1994.”
In the case in hand, due to by the sheer inaction
and delay on the part of the prosecution agency in informing
the petitioner company about the report of the State Pesticide
Laboratory, the matter was delayed to a great extent and by
the time the petitioners appeared in the Court and filed the
application for sending the second sample for analysis to
C.I.L., the expiry date of sample had virtually arrived.
Ultimately the analysis could be carried out by the C.I.L. only
after the expiry of sample's shelf life. Thus, the valuable right
available to the accused for challenging the report of the State12
Pesticide Laboratory by getting the sample reanalysed by the
C.I.L. was defeated and frustrated because of the sheer
inaction of the prosecuting agency.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court
and by this Court in the aforesaid two cases, the prosecution
of the accused petitioners in this case is nothing but a gross
abuse of the process of the Court.
Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed.
The proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 66/1986 going on
in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat are
hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
O R D E R
S.B.CRL. MISC. PETITION NO.1385/2006
M/s. Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Vs.
The Insecticide Inspector, Subject Specialist(Plant Protection)
Agri.& Anr.
Date of order : 4th March, 2013
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Citation: 2014 (1) WLN 462 (Raj)
The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed
by the petitioners challenging the order dated 22.8.2006
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat City
whereby he has upheld the order dated 7.3.2002 passed by
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat in Cr. Original Case No.
66/1986 dismissing the application u/s. 258 Cr.P.C.
Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the
Insecticide Inspector, Sojat during inspection collected a
sample of insecticide Aldrin 30% EC manufactured by
petitioner no. 1 M/s. Gupta Chemicals Private Ltd. from its
vendor M/s. Ambika Khad Vikreta Sojat for analysis. The
insecticide was manufactured in November, 1984. The expiry
date of the insecticide was October, 1986. Upon analysis of2
the insecticide being conducted, the State Pesticide Testing
Laboratory by its report dated 6.2.1985 opined that the
sample did not conform to standards. Copy of the analysis
report was supplied to the vendor i.e. Ambika Khad Vikreta,
Sojat. The sanction for prosecution was granted on 30.5.1985
and ultimately a complaint for the offences under the
Insecticides Act against the accused including the
manufacturing company and vendor etc. was filed in the
Court on 22.1.1986. The Court proceeded to take cognizance
against the petitioners and the other coaccused on the very
same day. In pursuance to the summons issued by the Court,
the petitioners appeared in the Court for the first occasion and
filed an application on 23.10.1986 for sending the second
sample of the insecticide to the Central Insecticide Laboratory
(CIL) for re-analysis. The second sample of the insecticide
was forwarded to the C.I.L. The analysis report of the second
sample after analysis conducted by the C.I.L. on 24.3.1987
was received with the opinion that as the sample was
containing 35.46 % insecticide content. Thus, the same was
substandard.
The petitioners herein filed an application under
Section 258 Cr.P.C. in the court below for dropping of the
proceedings initiated against them. The learned Magistrate by
the order dated 7.3.2002 rejected the prayer and the3
Revisional Court by the order dated 22.8.2006 has affirmed
the said order. Now, the petitioner's have approached this
Court by way of instant miscellaneous petition assailing the
order rejecting the application filed by them in the trial court
under Section 258 Cr.P.C. and for quashing of all the
subsequent proceedings sought to be taken against the
petitioners in the trial court .
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as
per Section 24 of the Insecticide Act, all the accused including
the Company against whom proceedings are proposed under
the Act have a right of re-analysis of the second sample of the
insecticide through the Central Insecticide Laboratory. He
submitted that the right of re-analysis of the second sample
of insecticide is an extension of the fundamental right of the
accused to defend themselves. Learned counsel submitted
that in this case, the petitioner company was given no
information about the sample being substandard as the copy
of the report of the State Pesticides Laboratory was not
supplied to it and thus, the proceedings of the complaint are
liable to be quashed. He placed reliance on the decisions of
Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Bharat
Insecticides Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in RLR
1996(1)-349 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Northern Minerals Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported4
in 2010 Cr.L.R.(SC)-729 in support of his arguments. He
submitted that as the copy of the State Pesticide Laboratory's
report was not supplied to the petitioner company, it was
deprived of its right to challenge the said report timely by
having the same sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory.
Learned counsel submitted that despite this hurdle,
the petitioners immediately on appearing in the trial Court in
pursuance to the summons issued by the court, moved an
application under Section 24(4) of the Act for having the
second sample analysed through C.I.L. The sample was sent to
the C.I.L. but the analysis thereof was conducted after the
expiry of shelf life of the sample. Learned counsel submitted
that in this view of the matter, the petitioners' right to
challenge the report of the State Pesticide Laboratory by
having the second sample analysed through the C.I.L. has
been frustrated and thus the petitioners were deprived of the
right to defend themselves. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed
that the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted and
the proceedings of the complaint going on in the court below
deserve to be quashed qua the petitioners.
Reply to the petition has been filed on behalf of the
Respondent Insecticides Inspector (the complainant). In the
said reply, the averment of the counsel for the petitioner that
the copy of the report of the State Pesticide Laboratory was5
not sent to the petitioner u/s. 24 of the Act has not been
disputed. Learned P.P. appearing for the State submitted that
as per Section 24 of the Act, only the vendor or the person
from whom the sample is taken is entitled to be informed
about the report of the State Pesticide Laboratory. He
contended that under the said provision of law, the
manufacturer has no right to be informed about the report of
the analysis conducted by the State Labotratory. He, therefore,
submitted that the learned Magistrate committed no error in
refusing to drop the proceedings against the petitioner and
the Revisional Court has rightly affirmed the order passed by
the learned Magistrate.
Heard and considered the arguments advanced at
the bar. Perused the record. From a perusal of the record, it is
apparent that the fact regarding the petitioner company not
having been informed about the report submitted by the State
Pesticide Laboratory after analysis of the insecticide sample is
not in dispute. Admittedly, the information in this regard was
only given to the vendor. The vendor did not choose to
challenge the report of the public analyst. After filing of the
complaint, on 20.1.1986, the petitioner company was issued
summons. The summons were served on the petitioner
company for the first time for the date of 23.10.1986 and that
is when, for the first time, the company came to be informed6
about the insecticide manufactured by it being substandard as
per the report of the State Pesticide Laboratory. An application
under Section 24(3) of the Act was moved on behalf of the
company on 25.10.1986 for sending the second sample to the
C.I.L. for reanalysis. By that time the sample was fast
approaching the expiry of its shelf life. Be that as it may. The
Court forwarded the sample to the C.I.L. for analysis but the
analysis of the sample could only be conducted after the
expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide.
The Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to
interpret the provisions of the Insecticides Act in the case of
State of Haryana Vs. Unique Farmaid P.Ltd. reported in 1999(4)
RCR(Cr.)-540 and Northern Mineral Ltd. Vs. Union of India
referred supra. The Apex Court held as under:-
“The decisions of this Court in the cases of
National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd.
(Supra), Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd. & Ors. (Supra)
and M/s. Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), in
our opinion do support Mr. Nehra's
contention. True it is that in first two cases,
the accused, besides sending intimation that
they intend to adduce evidence in
controversion of the report accused persons
have specifically demanded for sending the
sample for anlaysis by the Central
Insecticides Laboratory. However, the ratio of
the decision does not rest on this fact. While
laying down the law, this Court only took into
consideration that accused had intimated its
intention to adduce evidence in controversion
of the report and that conferred him the right
to get sample tested by Central Insecticides
Laboratory. The decision of this Court in the
case of M/s Gupta Chemicals (supra) is very7
close to the facts of the present case. In the
said case “on receipt of the information about
the State Analyst report the appellants sent
intimation to the Inspector expressing their
intention to lead evidence against the report”
and this intimation was read to mean “their
intention to have the sample tested in the
Central Insecticides Laboratory”. From the
language and the underlying object behind
Section 24(3) and (4) of the Act as also from
the ratio of the decisions aforesaid of this
Court, we are of the opinion that mere
notifying intention to adduce evidence in
controversion of the report of the Insecticide
Analyst confers on the accused the right and
clothes the court jurisdiction to send the
sample for analysis by the Central
Insecticides Laboratory and an accused is not
required to demand in specific terms that
sample be sent for analysis to Central
Insecticides Laboratory. In our opinion the
mere intention to adduce evidence in
controversion of the report, implies demand
to send the sample to Central Insecticides
Laboratory for test and analysis.
13. Section 24(3) of the Act gives right to the
accused to rebut the conclusive nature of the
evidence of Insecticide Analyst by notifying its
intention to adduce evidence in controversion
of the report before the Insecticide Inspector
or before Court where proceeding in respect
of the samples is pending. Further the Court
has been given power to send the sample for
analysis and test by the Central Insecticides
Laboratory of its own motion or at the
request of the complainant or the accused.
No proceeding was pending before any Court,
when the accused was served with Insecticide
Analyst report, the intention was necessarily
required to be conveyed to the Insecticide
Inspector, which was so done by the appellant
and in this background Insecticide Inspector
was obliged to institute complaint forthwith
and produce sample and request the court to
send the sample for analysis and test to the
Central Insecticides Laboratory. Appellant did8
whatever was possible for it. Its right has
been defeated by not sending the sample for
analysis and report to Central Insecticides
Laboratory. It may be mentioned herein that
shelf life of the insecticides had expired even
prior to the filing of the complaint. The
position therefore which emerges is that by
sheer inaction the shelf life of the sample of
insecticides had expired and for that reason
no step was possible to be taken for its test
and analysis by Central Insecticides
Laboratory. Valuable right of the appellant
having been defeated, we are of the opinion
that allowing this criminal prosecution
against the appellant to continue shall be
futile and abuse of the process of Court.
The controversy raised by the learned P.P. that the
copy of the report of the State Insecticides Analysis was
required to be supplied only to the vendor or the person from
whom the sample was taken has been set at rest by this Court
in the case of M/s. Bharat Insecticides Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of
Raj. (supra) wherein this very objection of the State was
repelled and the Hon'ble Court held as below:-
“14. On a deep and careful consideration to
the purpose and intendment of Sec. 24 and
the scheme of the Act, I am of the view that
this section should receive the interpretation
to lay down the following guide-lines:-
(a) On receipt of Insecticide's Analyst's
report, the Insecticide Inspector shall
deliver one copy of the report to the
person from whom the sample is taken.
In case the sample is found substandard
or mis-branded and the
Inspector intends to launch prosecution
against other persons also, then a copy
of the said report should be made
available to all the accused against9
whom the report is sought to be used
in order to give them an opportunity to
challenge the correctness or
authenticity of the report within the
specified time as provided in subsection
(3).
(b) The right to challenge Analyst's
report within 28 days of the receipt of a
copy of such report as provided in subsection
(3) should be available to all the
accused against whom; the report is
sought to be used in the criminal
prosecution.
© If the correctness of Analyst's report
is challenged by the person from whom
the sample was taken or any other
accused within the prescribed period,
the Insecticide Inspector is bound to
send the second part of the
sample/container, which was restored
to the person from whom the sample
was taken to the CIL for re-testing or
re-analysing. If this interpretation is
not taken, the very purpose of giving
one part of the sample to the person
from whom it was taken shall be
meaningless. Further, the opening
words of sub-section (4) “Unless the
sample has already been tested or
analysed in the Central Insecticides
Laboratory” indicate that the second
sample can be got analysed or tested in
the CIL without intervention of the
Court.
(d) In case the second sample is sent
for re-testing or re-analysing in the CIL
as aforesaid, the report of the CIL shall
be conclusive and there would be no
further right to any accused to get the
third sample produced in the Court to
be analysed or re-tested in the CIL.
(e) In case, the second sample is not
analysed or re-tested as aforesaid for
any reason, including that criminal
proceedings in respect of the sample
are pending in the Court, the third
sample may be sent for analysing or
re-testing by the Court on its own10
motion or at the request either of the
complainant or of the accused, as the
case may be.
(f) After receipt of a copy of Analyst's
report if the same is not challenged by
any of the accused within the
prescribed period, it would be
conclusive under Sec. 24(3) of the Act
and it would not be open to be
challenged by them in the criminal
proceedings which are pending or
initiated against them. In that situation,
it would not be open for them to say
that they have been deprived of their
right to get the sample re-tested for
re-analysed in the CIL. In case, the
Analyst's report was not made available
to other accused before launching
prosecution against them, they should
have a right to get a report from the CIL
by making request to the court
concerned to get the third sample
produced in court re-tested or reanalysed.
(g) In case the second part of the
sample is not sent to the CIL for re-test
or re-analysis inspite of the notification
expressing intention to adduce
evidence in contravention of the report
made within 28 days and the
prosecution is launched after inordinate
delay i.e. after expiry of self-life period
of the insecticide, then it would be fatal
to the prosecution as it would deprive
the accused of their valuable right to
get the sample tested or analysed in
the CIL.
15. The above interpretation to Sec. 24
would be harmonious and in consonance to
the principles of natural justice. Applying the
aforesaid guidelines in the instant case, it
transpires that the Company-M/s. Bharat
Insecticides Ltd. and its Directors, who are
accused in the case, were not delivered a
copy of Insecticide Analyst's report, even
then in his reply dated 11.11.93 to the show
cause notice dated 27.10.93 of the
Insecticide Inspector the Manager (Quality11
Control) of the Company had requested the
Insecticide Inspector to get the second
sample of the insecticide re-tested in the
CIL, but no steps were taken by him in this
direction. The complaint in the case was filed
in court on 18.10.94 i.e. after the expiry of
self-life period of the Insecticide. The
cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate on 18.10.94 and process was
issued on the same day, with the result the
Company and its Directors had no occasion
to make a request to the Court to get
another sample tested in the CIL and as
such, they have been deprived of their
valuable right under sub-section (4) of Sec.
24 of the Act. The argument of the learned
Public Prosecutor that even after the expiry
of self-life period of the Insecticide, another
sample could have been sent to the CIL for
analysis can not be accepted. It is not
disputed that pesticide in the instant case
was effective for a maxium period of one
year from the date of its manufacture. It was
effective upto April 1994 while the complaint
itself was filed on 18
th October, 1994.”
In the case in hand, due to by the sheer inaction
and delay on the part of the prosecution agency in informing
the petitioner company about the report of the State Pesticide
Laboratory, the matter was delayed to a great extent and by
the time the petitioners appeared in the Court and filed the
application for sending the second sample for analysis to
C.I.L., the expiry date of sample had virtually arrived.
Ultimately the analysis could be carried out by the C.I.L. only
after the expiry of sample's shelf life. Thus, the valuable right
available to the accused for challenging the report of the State12
Pesticide Laboratory by getting the sample reanalysed by the
C.I.L. was defeated and frustrated because of the sheer
inaction of the prosecuting agency.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court
and by this Court in the aforesaid two cases, the prosecution
of the accused petitioners in this case is nothing but a gross
abuse of the process of the Court.
Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed.
The proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 66/1986 going on
in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat are
hereby quashed qua the petitioner. The proceedings shall
continue against the remaining accused.
Record be sent back to the concerned Court
forthwith.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/Sushil/
Print Page
would be harmonious and in consonance to
the principles of natural justice. Applying the
aforesaid guidelines in the instant case, it
transpires that the Company-M/s. Bharat
Insecticides Ltd. and its Directors, who are
accused in the case, were not delivered a
copy of Insecticide Analyst's report, even
then in his reply dated 11.11.93 to the show
cause notice dated 27.10.93 of the
Insecticide Inspector the Manager (Quality11
Control) of the Company had requested the
Insecticide Inspector to get the second
sample of the insecticide re-tested in the
CIL, but no steps were taken by him in this
direction. The complaint in the case was filed
in court on 18.10.94 i.e. after the expiry of
shelf-life period of the Insecticide. The
cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate on 18.10.94 and process was
issued on the same day, with the result the
Company and its Directors had no occasion
to make a request to the Court to get
another sample tested in the CIL and as
such, they have been deprived of their
valuable right under sub-section (4) of Sec.
24 of the Act. The argument of the learned
Public Prosecutor that even after the expiry
of self-life period of the Insecticide, another
sample could have been sent to the CIL for
analysis can not be accepted. It is not
disputed that pesticide in the instant case
was effective for a maxium period of one
year from the date of its manufacture. It was
effective upto April 1994 while the complaint
itself was filed on 18
th October, 1994.”
In the case in hand, due to by the sheer inaction
and delay on the part of the prosecution agency in informing
the petitioner company about the report of the State Pesticide
Laboratory, the matter was delayed to a great extent and by
the time the petitioners appeared in the Court and filed the
application for sending the second sample for analysis to
C.I.L., the expiry date of sample had virtually arrived.
Ultimately the analysis could be carried out by the C.I.L. only
after the expiry of sample's shelf life. Thus, the valuable right
available to the accused for challenging the report of the State12
Pesticide Laboratory by getting the sample reanalysed by the
C.I.L. was defeated and frustrated because of the sheer
inaction of the prosecuting agency.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court
and by this Court in the aforesaid two cases, the prosecution
of the accused petitioners in this case is nothing but a gross
abuse of the process of the Court.
Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed.
The proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 66/1986 going on
in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat are
hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
O R D E R
S.B.CRL. MISC. PETITION NO.1385/2006
M/s. Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Vs.
The Insecticide Inspector, Subject Specialist(Plant Protection)
Agri.& Anr.
Date of order : 4th March, 2013
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Citation: 2014 (1) WLN 462 (Raj)
The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed
by the petitioners challenging the order dated 22.8.2006
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat City
whereby he has upheld the order dated 7.3.2002 passed by
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat in Cr. Original Case No.
66/1986 dismissing the application u/s. 258 Cr.P.C.
Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the
Insecticide Inspector, Sojat during inspection collected a
sample of insecticide Aldrin 30% EC manufactured by
petitioner no. 1 M/s. Gupta Chemicals Private Ltd. from its
vendor M/s. Ambika Khad Vikreta Sojat for analysis. The
insecticide was manufactured in November, 1984. The expiry
date of the insecticide was October, 1986. Upon analysis of2
the insecticide being conducted, the State Pesticide Testing
Laboratory by its report dated 6.2.1985 opined that the
sample did not conform to standards. Copy of the analysis
report was supplied to the vendor i.e. Ambika Khad Vikreta,
Sojat. The sanction for prosecution was granted on 30.5.1985
and ultimately a complaint for the offences under the
Insecticides Act against the accused including the
manufacturing company and vendor etc. was filed in the
Court on 22.1.1986. The Court proceeded to take cognizance
against the petitioners and the other coaccused on the very
same day. In pursuance to the summons issued by the Court,
the petitioners appeared in the Court for the first occasion and
filed an application on 23.10.1986 for sending the second
sample of the insecticide to the Central Insecticide Laboratory
(CIL) for re-analysis. The second sample of the insecticide
was forwarded to the C.I.L. The analysis report of the second
sample after analysis conducted by the C.I.L. on 24.3.1987
was received with the opinion that as the sample was
containing 35.46 % insecticide content. Thus, the same was
substandard.
The petitioners herein filed an application under
Section 258 Cr.P.C. in the court below for dropping of the
proceedings initiated against them. The learned Magistrate by
the order dated 7.3.2002 rejected the prayer and the3
Revisional Court by the order dated 22.8.2006 has affirmed
the said order. Now, the petitioner's have approached this
Court by way of instant miscellaneous petition assailing the
order rejecting the application filed by them in the trial court
under Section 258 Cr.P.C. and for quashing of all the
subsequent proceedings sought to be taken against the
petitioners in the trial court .
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as
per Section 24 of the Insecticide Act, all the accused including
the Company against whom proceedings are proposed under
the Act have a right of re-analysis of the second sample of the
insecticide through the Central Insecticide Laboratory. He
submitted that the right of re-analysis of the second sample
of insecticide is an extension of the fundamental right of the
accused to defend themselves. Learned counsel submitted
that in this case, the petitioner company was given no
information about the sample being substandard as the copy
of the report of the State Pesticides Laboratory was not
supplied to it and thus, the proceedings of the complaint are
liable to be quashed. He placed reliance on the decisions of
Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Bharat
Insecticides Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in RLR
1996(1)-349 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Northern Minerals Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported4
in 2010 Cr.L.R.(SC)-729 in support of his arguments. He
submitted that as the copy of the State Pesticide Laboratory's
report was not supplied to the petitioner company, it was
deprived of its right to challenge the said report timely by
having the same sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory.
Learned counsel submitted that despite this hurdle,
the petitioners immediately on appearing in the trial Court in
pursuance to the summons issued by the court, moved an
application under Section 24(4) of the Act for having the
second sample analysed through C.I.L. The sample was sent to
the C.I.L. but the analysis thereof was conducted after the
expiry of shelf life of the sample. Learned counsel submitted
that in this view of the matter, the petitioners' right to
challenge the report of the State Pesticide Laboratory by
having the second sample analysed through the C.I.L. has
been frustrated and thus the petitioners were deprived of the
right to defend themselves. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed
that the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted and
the proceedings of the complaint going on in the court below
deserve to be quashed qua the petitioners.
Reply to the petition has been filed on behalf of the
Respondent Insecticides Inspector (the complainant). In the
said reply, the averment of the counsel for the petitioner that
the copy of the report of the State Pesticide Laboratory was5
not sent to the petitioner u/s. 24 of the Act has not been
disputed. Learned P.P. appearing for the State submitted that
as per Section 24 of the Act, only the vendor or the person
from whom the sample is taken is entitled to be informed
about the report of the State Pesticide Laboratory. He
contended that under the said provision of law, the
manufacturer has no right to be informed about the report of
the analysis conducted by the State Labotratory. He, therefore,
submitted that the learned Magistrate committed no error in
refusing to drop the proceedings against the petitioner and
the Revisional Court has rightly affirmed the order passed by
the learned Magistrate.
Heard and considered the arguments advanced at
the bar. Perused the record. From a perusal of the record, it is
apparent that the fact regarding the petitioner company not
having been informed about the report submitted by the State
Pesticide Laboratory after analysis of the insecticide sample is
not in dispute. Admittedly, the information in this regard was
only given to the vendor. The vendor did not choose to
challenge the report of the public analyst. After filing of the
complaint, on 20.1.1986, the petitioner company was issued
summons. The summons were served on the petitioner
company for the first time for the date of 23.10.1986 and that
is when, for the first time, the company came to be informed6
about the insecticide manufactured by it being substandard as
per the report of the State Pesticide Laboratory. An application
under Section 24(3) of the Act was moved on behalf of the
company on 25.10.1986 for sending the second sample to the
C.I.L. for reanalysis. By that time the sample was fast
approaching the expiry of its shelf life. Be that as it may. The
Court forwarded the sample to the C.I.L. for analysis but the
analysis of the sample could only be conducted after the
expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide.
The Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to
interpret the provisions of the Insecticides Act in the case of
State of Haryana Vs. Unique Farmaid P.Ltd. reported in 1999(4)
RCR(Cr.)-540 and Northern Mineral Ltd. Vs. Union of India
referred supra. The Apex Court held as under:-
“The decisions of this Court in the cases of
National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd.
(Supra), Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd. & Ors. (Supra)
and M/s. Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), in
our opinion do support Mr. Nehra's
contention. True it is that in first two cases,
the accused, besides sending intimation that
they intend to adduce evidence in
controversion of the report accused persons
have specifically demanded for sending the
sample for anlaysis by the Central
Insecticides Laboratory. However, the ratio of
the decision does not rest on this fact. While
laying down the law, this Court only took into
consideration that accused had intimated its
intention to adduce evidence in controversion
of the report and that conferred him the right
to get sample tested by Central Insecticides
Laboratory. The decision of this Court in the
case of M/s Gupta Chemicals (supra) is very7
close to the facts of the present case. In the
said case “on receipt of the information about
the State Analyst report the appellants sent
intimation to the Inspector expressing their
intention to lead evidence against the report”
and this intimation was read to mean “their
intention to have the sample tested in the
Central Insecticides Laboratory”. From the
language and the underlying object behind
Section 24(3) and (4) of the Act as also from
the ratio of the decisions aforesaid of this
Court, we are of the opinion that mere
notifying intention to adduce evidence in
controversion of the report of the Insecticide
Analyst confers on the accused the right and
clothes the court jurisdiction to send the
sample for analysis by the Central
Insecticides Laboratory and an accused is not
required to demand in specific terms that
sample be sent for analysis to Central
Insecticides Laboratory. In our opinion the
mere intention to adduce evidence in
controversion of the report, implies demand
to send the sample to Central Insecticides
Laboratory for test and analysis.
13. Section 24(3) of the Act gives right to the
accused to rebut the conclusive nature of the
evidence of Insecticide Analyst by notifying its
intention to adduce evidence in controversion
of the report before the Insecticide Inspector
or before Court where proceeding in respect
of the samples is pending. Further the Court
has been given power to send the sample for
analysis and test by the Central Insecticides
Laboratory of its own motion or at the
request of the complainant or the accused.
No proceeding was pending before any Court,
when the accused was served with Insecticide
Analyst report, the intention was necessarily
required to be conveyed to the Insecticide
Inspector, which was so done by the appellant
and in this background Insecticide Inspector
was obliged to institute complaint forthwith
and produce sample and request the court to
send the sample for analysis and test to the
Central Insecticides Laboratory. Appellant did8
whatever was possible for it. Its right has
been defeated by not sending the sample for
analysis and report to Central Insecticides
Laboratory. It may be mentioned herein that
shelf life of the insecticides had expired even
prior to the filing of the complaint. The
position therefore which emerges is that by
sheer inaction the shelf life of the sample of
insecticides had expired and for that reason
no step was possible to be taken for its test
and analysis by Central Insecticides
Laboratory. Valuable right of the appellant
having been defeated, we are of the opinion
that allowing this criminal prosecution
against the appellant to continue shall be
futile and abuse of the process of Court.
The controversy raised by the learned P.P. that the
copy of the report of the State Insecticides Analysis was
required to be supplied only to the vendor or the person from
whom the sample was taken has been set at rest by this Court
in the case of M/s. Bharat Insecticides Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of
Raj. (supra) wherein this very objection of the State was
repelled and the Hon'ble Court held as below:-
“14. On a deep and careful consideration to
the purpose and intendment of Sec. 24 and
the scheme of the Act, I am of the view that
this section should receive the interpretation
to lay down the following guide-lines:-
(a) On receipt of Insecticide's Analyst's
report, the Insecticide Inspector shall
deliver one copy of the report to the
person from whom the sample is taken.
In case the sample is found substandard
or mis-branded and the
Inspector intends to launch prosecution
against other persons also, then a copy
of the said report should be made
available to all the accused against9
whom the report is sought to be used
in order to give them an opportunity to
challenge the correctness or
authenticity of the report within the
specified time as provided in subsection
(3).
(b) The right to challenge Analyst's
report within 28 days of the receipt of a
copy of such report as provided in subsection
(3) should be available to all the
accused against whom; the report is
sought to be used in the criminal
prosecution.
© If the correctness of Analyst's report
is challenged by the person from whom
the sample was taken or any other
accused within the prescribed period,
the Insecticide Inspector is bound to
send the second part of the
sample/container, which was restored
to the person from whom the sample
was taken to the CIL for re-testing or
re-analysing. If this interpretation is
not taken, the very purpose of giving
one part of the sample to the person
from whom it was taken shall be
meaningless. Further, the opening
words of sub-section (4) “Unless the
sample has already been tested or
analysed in the Central Insecticides
Laboratory” indicate that the second
sample can be got analysed or tested in
the CIL without intervention of the
Court.
(d) In case the second sample is sent
for re-testing or re-analysing in the CIL
as aforesaid, the report of the CIL shall
be conclusive and there would be no
further right to any accused to get the
third sample produced in the Court to
be analysed or re-tested in the CIL.
(e) In case, the second sample is not
analysed or re-tested as aforesaid for
any reason, including that criminal
proceedings in respect of the sample
are pending in the Court, the third
sample may be sent for analysing or
re-testing by the Court on its own10
motion or at the request either of the
complainant or of the accused, as the
case may be.
(f) After receipt of a copy of Analyst's
report if the same is not challenged by
any of the accused within the
prescribed period, it would be
conclusive under Sec. 24(3) of the Act
and it would not be open to be
challenged by them in the criminal
proceedings which are pending or
initiated against them. In that situation,
it would not be open for them to say
that they have been deprived of their
right to get the sample re-tested for
re-analysed in the CIL. In case, the
Analyst's report was not made available
to other accused before launching
prosecution against them, they should
have a right to get a report from the CIL
by making request to the court
concerned to get the third sample
produced in court re-tested or reanalysed.
(g) In case the second part of the
sample is not sent to the CIL for re-test
or re-analysis inspite of the notification
expressing intention to adduce
evidence in contravention of the report
made within 28 days and the
prosecution is launched after inordinate
delay i.e. after expiry of self-life period
of the insecticide, then it would be fatal
to the prosecution as it would deprive
the accused of their valuable right to
get the sample tested or analysed in
the CIL.
15. The above interpretation to Sec. 24
would be harmonious and in consonance to
the principles of natural justice. Applying the
aforesaid guidelines in the instant case, it
transpires that the Company-M/s. Bharat
Insecticides Ltd. and its Directors, who are
accused in the case, were not delivered a
copy of Insecticide Analyst's report, even
then in his reply dated 11.11.93 to the show
cause notice dated 27.10.93 of the
Insecticide Inspector the Manager (Quality11
Control) of the Company had requested the
Insecticide Inspector to get the second
sample of the insecticide re-tested in the
CIL, but no steps were taken by him in this
direction. The complaint in the case was filed
in court on 18.10.94 i.e. after the expiry of
self-life period of the Insecticide. The
cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate on 18.10.94 and process was
issued on the same day, with the result the
Company and its Directors had no occasion
to make a request to the Court to get
another sample tested in the CIL and as
such, they have been deprived of their
valuable right under sub-section (4) of Sec.
24 of the Act. The argument of the learned
Public Prosecutor that even after the expiry
of self-life period of the Insecticide, another
sample could have been sent to the CIL for
analysis can not be accepted. It is not
disputed that pesticide in the instant case
was effective for a maxium period of one
year from the date of its manufacture. It was
effective upto April 1994 while the complaint
itself was filed on 18
th October, 1994.”
In the case in hand, due to by the sheer inaction
and delay on the part of the prosecution agency in informing
the petitioner company about the report of the State Pesticide
Laboratory, the matter was delayed to a great extent and by
the time the petitioners appeared in the Court and filed the
application for sending the second sample for analysis to
C.I.L., the expiry date of sample had virtually arrived.
Ultimately the analysis could be carried out by the C.I.L. only
after the expiry of sample's shelf life. Thus, the valuable right
available to the accused for challenging the report of the State12
Pesticide Laboratory by getting the sample reanalysed by the
C.I.L. was defeated and frustrated because of the sheer
inaction of the prosecuting agency.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court
and by this Court in the aforesaid two cases, the prosecution
of the accused petitioners in this case is nothing but a gross
abuse of the process of the Court.
Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed.
The proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 66/1986 going on
in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat are
hereby quashed qua the petitioner. The proceedings shall
continue against the remaining accused.
Record be sent back to the concerned Court
forthwith.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/Sushil/
No comments:
Post a Comment