Oral Judgment:

1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Aurangabad on their application for discharge in Summary Criminal Case No.3074/1998 and pray for quashing of the said Criminal proceedings.

2. Indisputably, on 13.6.1997, the Insecticide Inspector -Mr.Vasant Vyapari, visited shop of the petitioners. The petitioners are dealing in business of manufacturing and selling of insecticides. The Insecticide Inspector collected samples of the insecticide called "Phorate 10%" bearing batch No. S486. He served a notice on the petitioners to the effect that the samples were drawn for the purpose of analysis in order to ascertain the quality of the same. The required procedure was followed and one of the samples was sent to the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Aurangabad. The laboratory gave report dated 13.6.1997 to the effect that the sample of insecticide was substandard and misbranded. A copy of the report was sent to the petitioners and they were called upon to explain their stand. They asserted that they had not committed any offence and the sample was in conformity with the standards required under the law. They also relied upon certificate of analysis issued by their own laboratory. The necessary sanction was accorded as required U/s 31(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, on 1.4.1998 by the Commissioner of Agriculture. The Insecticide Inspector lodged complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad on 24.4.1998.

3. There is no dispute about the fact that the shelf-life of the insecticide in question was up till end of February 1998. Admittedly, the complaint was lodged by the Insecticide Inspector much after the said expiry date of the insecticide samples. The sanction for the prosecution was also issued after the shelf-life of the insecticide was over. It is undisputed that the report of the analysis conducted by the Insecticide Testing Laboratory was sent to the petitioners vide show cause notice dated 28.7.1997 and reply thereto was given by them on 20.8.1997. In the reply, the petitioners made it clear that they asked their Research and Development Scientist to analyse the counter sample of the same batch of the insecticide. They also stated that the internal testing confirmed the fact that the insecticide of the same batch was in conformity with the ISI specifications in all respects. In support of such contention, they also forwarded copy of the certificate of analysis issued by the concerned R & D Scientist. In other words, they furnished evidence, whereby they desired to dispute correctness of the report of the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Aurangabad, which was served on them.

4. The petitioners asserted that their right to challenge the report was frustrated due to filing of the complaint after the shelf life of the insecticide. Hence, they sought discharge from the Criminal case. The learned Judicial Magistrate rejected their contention.

5. Heard Mr. R.R. Mantri, learned advocate for the petitioners and Smt. S.S. Autade, learned A.P.P. for the State.

6. At the threshold, it is significant to note that the genesis of the complaint is that the sample of the insecticide was found to be misbranded under provisions of sub clause (i) of clause (k) of Section 3 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. Sub clause (k) reads as follows :

"(k) ‘Misbranded’ – an insecticide shall be deemed to be misbranded –

(i) if its label contains any statement, design or graphic representation relating thereto which is false or misleading in any material particular, or if its package is otherwise deceptive in respect of its contents; or

(ii) x x x x" The report of Insecticide Testing Laboratory reveals that the sample was not in conformity with the relevant specifications in the context of A.I. contents. It was, therefore, treated as misbranded.

7. The law makes it mandatory that the Insecticide Inspector shall deliver a copy of the report to the person from whom