Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : G.L. Gupta
Babulal Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
Associate Director - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 488 of 1998
Decided On : 03/08/1999
INSECTICIDES ACT - SECTION 24 - SELF LIFE OF INSECTICIDE - RETESTING BY CENTRAL INSECTICIDES LABORATORY - RIGHT OF ACCUSED - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - INSECTICIDES ACT, 1968.
Fact of the Case:
In several cases, complaints against manufacturers of insecticides were filed after the expiry of the self-life of the insecticides or after the manufacturers were served. The manufacturers challenged the proceedings, arguing that they were deprived of their right to retest the insecticides by the Central Insecticides Laboratory (CIL) under Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the manufacturers were deprived of their right to retest the insecticides by the CIL, which is a valuable right. The court interpreted Section 24(4) of the Act and held that the word 'accused' includes all persons against whom cognizance is taken and process is issued by the concerned Magistrate. The court further held that a copy of the report of the Insecticide Analyst should be delivered to or served upon all the accused against whom it is sought to be used.
Issues: Whether the manufacturers were deprived of their right to retest the insecticides by the CIL.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on its previous decisions in similar cases, where it had held that the proceedings against the accused should be quashed if they were deprived of their right to retest the insecticides by the CIL. The court also relied on the Supreme Court decision in State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries, where it was held that if the accused is deprived of his natural right of getting the sample analysed by the CIL, the proceedings in the Court of Magistrate would be fruitless.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions filed by the manufacturers and quashed the proceedings against them in the trial court. The court held that the continuance of the proceedings against the manufacturers would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
G.L. Gupta, J.-In all these Miscellaneous petitions under Section 482, CrPC the question to be considered is whether the proceedings pending against the petitioners, who are manufacturers of the insecticides, should be quashed on the ground that the self life of the insecticide had expired before filing of the complaint against them or before they could be served in the case.
2. Thecontention of Mr. Garg, learned Counsel for the petitioners, was that as the complaints were filed in the Court after the expiry of date of insecticides or the petitioners were served after the said date, the petitioners were deprived of their right of retesting of the insecticide by the Central Insecticides Laboratory under Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act. Relying on the cases of M/s. Bharat Insecticides Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan 1997 (1) WLC (Raj) 657, Bayer India Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan 1997 WLC (Raj) UC 630, M/s. Agro Chemicals v. State of Rajasthan (S. B. Cr. Miscellaneous Petition No. 577/93) decided on 19-1 1-98, 5. K. Ahuja v. State of Rajasthan 1991 RCC 254 and Agarwal Khad Bhandar v. State of Raj 1993 RCC 607. Mr. Garg submitted that the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners in the trial Court is abuse of the process of the Court.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, admitting that in some cases the complaints were filed after the date of the expiry of the insecticides, submitted that on the technicalities the trial of the petitioners should not be quashed.
4. Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 reads as follows:-
24. Report of Insecticide Analyst.-
.(1) The Insecticide Analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis under Sub-section (6) of Section 22, shall, within a period of sixty days, deliver to the Insecticide Inspector submitting it a signed report in duplicate in the prescribed form.
(2) The Insecticide Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and shall retain the other copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the
sample.
.(3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by an Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken has within twenty-eight days of the receipt of a copy of the report notified in writing the Insecticide Inspector or the Court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report.
.(4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory, where a person has under Sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion the Insecticide Analyst’s report, the Court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complaint or of the accused, cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the Magistrate under Sub-section (6) of Section 22 to be sent for test or analysis to the said laboratory, which shall make the test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or under the authority of , the Director of the Central Insecticides Laboratory the result thereof and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.
.(5) Thecost of a test or analysis made by the Central Insecticides Laboratory under Sub-section (4) shall be paid by the complainant or the accused, as the Court shall direct.
5. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 mandates the Insecticides Analyst to submit the report of analysis within a period of 60 days. Sub-section (2) provides that the Insecticide Inspector on receipt of the report of the Insecticide Analyst shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken. Sub-section (4) provides that the accused has a right of retesting of the sample of the insecticide by the Central Insecticide Laboratory. The Apex Court in the case
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
