Important Point
Where the accused requested the insecticide Inspector to get the samples re-aralyed from central Insecticide Laboratory v/s 24(4) of Insecticides Act which request was not acceded to and by the time the accused was summoned by Court selflife of samples already expired, since accused was deprived of his right to have tested samples from central Laboratory prejecding his difence,m prosecution proceedings were quarhed.

Headnote:Insecticides Act, 1968-Section 29 r/w Section 30-Offience of misbranding-Accused on receipt of analyst report requested indecticide Inspector to get samploes re-analysed from central insecticides Laboratory u/s 24(4)-Not acceded to-By the time accused were summoned to appear in court selflife of samples already expired-Petition to quash prosecution proceedings-Proceedings quashed as valuable right conferred on accused to have samples tested from central Insecticides Laboratory prejudicing their defence.
       Held : It has been submitted before us as well as before the High Court that the Insecticide Inspector was not competent to send the sample for re-testing to the Central Insecticides Laboratory and that request for re-testing should have been made to the Court concerned. Then the State has further submitted that no other defence than prescribed under Section 30 of the Act could he allowed to be raised in the prosecution filed under the Act and further that the shelf life of the sample was not relevant as the Act does not prescribe any expiry date. There is no substance in either of these contentions. If the expiry date is not relevant, there was no reason why in the form prescribed for submission of the report by the Insecticide Analyst, the dates of manufacture of the article and the expiry date are mentioned. We do not find any answer to this by the State. In support of this submission, no rule has been cited and no evidence produced showing that the expiry date of the insecticide is inconsequential. Section 30 provides for defences which may or may not be allwoed in prosecution under the Act. (Para 10)
       Sub-section (1) of Section 30 which appears to be relevant only prescribes in effect that ignorance would be of no defence but that does not mean that if there are contraventions of other mandatory provisions of the Act, the accused have no remedy. Procedure for testing the sample is prescribed and if it is contravened to the prejudice of the accused, he certainly has right to seek dismissal of the complaint. There cannot be two opinion about that. Then in order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested from Central Insecticides Laboratory, it is incumbent on the prosecution to file the complaint expeditiously so that the right of the accused is not lost. In the present case, by the time the respondents were asked to appear before the Court, expiry date of the insecticide was already over and sending of sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory at that late stage would be of no consequence. (Para 11)
       The respondents in these appeals have been deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act. Under sub-section (3) of Section 24 report signed by the Insecticide analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated there in and shall be conclusive evidence against the accused only if the accused do not, within 28 days of the receipt of the report, notify in writing to the Insecticides Inspector or the Court before which proceedings are pending that they intend to adduce evidence to controvert the report. In the present cases Insecticide Inspector was notified that the accused intended to adduce evidence to controvert the report. By the time the matter reached the court, shelf life of the sample had already expired and no purpose would have been served informing the court of such an intention. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was, therefore, not conclusive. A valuable right had been conferred on the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and in the circumstances of the case accused have been deprived of that right, thus, prejudicing them in their defence. (Para 12)
       The High Court was right in concluding that it will be an abuse of the process of court if the prosecution is continued against the respondents-the accused persons. High Court rightly quashed the criminal complaint. (Para 13)

Judgment

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Leave granted.

2. In these appeals, raising a common question of law, the State has challenged the three separate judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court queshing the complaints filed under Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short, the ‘Act’). High Court exercised its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the ‘Code’) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Section 29 of the Act provides for offences and punishment. Under clasuse (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 29 whoever imports, manufactures, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes any insecticide deemed to be misbranded under sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (iii) or sub-clause (viii) of clause (k) of Section 3 of the Act shall be punishable for the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both; and for the second and a subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

3. To understand the rival contentions, we refer to the facts in the case in the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4067/97. An Insecticide Inspector appointed under the Act on August 5, 1994 visited the shop premises of Sukhbir Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Vikas Beej Bhandar and drew three samples of Monochrotophos-36% SL insecticide. He gave one sample to Sukhbit Singh, sent the second sample to the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory (Insecticides) Karnal for testing and the third sample was deposited with the Deputy Director Agriculture, Sonepat (Sections 21 and 22 of the Act). M/s. Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd. (for short, the ‘Unique Farmaid’) is the manufacturer of the insecticide in question. Hari Singh Verma is the Sales Officer of Unique Farmaid, the manufacturer. It was reported by the Quality Control Laboratory in its analysis report that Sample of Monochrotophos-36% SL was misbranded (sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act). Accordingly, notices along with analysis report of the sample were sent on September 30, 1994 to M/s. Vikas Beej Bhandar and to Unique Farmaid. A reply dated October 8, 1994 was sent by the Unique Farmaid. The reply did not find favour with the authority and after obtaining consent for launching the prosecution, the insecticide Inspector on June 24, 1995 filed a criminal complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat.

4. Unique Farmaid and Hari Singh Verma, Sales Officer moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing the complaint and the consequential proceedings. It was submitted that the manufacturing date of the insecticide was March 1994 and its expiry date was February 1995. By the time the accused was summoned to appear in the Court on April 6, 1995, they had lost their right of getting the samples re-analysed from the Central insecticides Laboratory under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act and in these circumstances making them to stand trial would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

5. Section 22 of the Act prescribes procedure to be followed by the Insecticides Inspector when he takes any sample of an insecticide. Sub-section (6) of Section 22 is relevant and is as under :

“22. (6) The Insecticide Inspector shall restore one portion of a sample so divided or one container, as the case may be, to the person from whom he takes it and shall retain the remainder and dispose of the same as follows :

(i) one portion or container, he shall forthwith send to the Insecticide Analyst for test or analysis; and

(ii) the second, he shall produce to the court before which proceedings, if any, are instituted in respect of the insecticide.”

6. As to how the report of the Insecticide Analyst is to be considered, rederence may be made to Section 24 of the Act which is as under :

“24. Report of Insecticide Analyst.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 1167

Cases Referred (5)