JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the proceedings in S.T.C.No.653 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi and quash the same as devoid of merits as against the petitioners.)

1. This application has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.653 of 2016 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramathi.

2. It is case of the prosecution that on 03.12.2015, the Agricultural Officer lifted the samples of insecticide known as “Curacron” (Profenofos) from the shop of Sri Murugan Farmers Association, Kabilarmalai and divided them into three parts. Out of the three parts, one sample was handed over to the owner of the shop, second sample was sent to the Court and third sample was sent to the Insecticide Analyst. The report of the Analyst was received on 15.12.2015 stating that the sample referred to in the report is of misbranded quality resulting in the issuance of a show-cause notice dated 23.12.2015 to the petitioner herein calling for explanation. The respondent, not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, filed a private complaint before the Court for the offence under Section 29 (a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968.

3. It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners being the manufacturer and dealer, no report from the referral laboratory has been served on them at the earlier point of time to enable them to have the second sample tested from the Central Laboratory. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not been launched immediately and it has been launched only in the year 2016, by that time the insecticide has expired and therefore, when the right to have the second sample tested has been denied, the continuation of prosecution against these petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel further submitted that the sanction has been accorded by the concerned authority mechanically as the accused has not been named in the sanction order and such sanction is not valid in the eye of law. In sum and substance, it is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners being the manufacturer and dealer, they cannot be prosecuted when the opportunity to have the second sample tested has been lost by the act of the complainant and the sanction accorded by the Authority also does not contain the name of these petitioners and therefore, the learned counsel prayed for quashing of the complaint. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Northern Minerals Limited and others Vs. Rajasthan Government and Another reported in (2016) 12 SCC 298, a judgment of High Court of Rajasthan in M/s.S.N.Chemicals Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. reported in 1999 SCC Online Raj 733 and an order of this Court dated 22.11.2021 made in Crl.O.P (MD) No.2258 of 2019 [Sh.Jaikumar Sedha Vs. J.Chandrakala, Agricultural Officer].

4. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) on the above submissions.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the show-cause notice has been issued to the manufacturer and dealer within the stipulated time, but they failed to avail the opportunity of having the second sample tested and therefore, the petitioners cannot now be heard to contend that the opportunity was not given to them to have the second sample tested and he opposed for quashing of the complaint.

6. This Court perused the entire materials available on record.

7. As pointed out supra, the sample was lifted on 03.12.2015. It is relevant to note that the present petitioners are manufacturer and dealer. It is clear from Annexure IV enclosed in the typed-set of papers that the date of manufacture of the sample lifted was on 06.10.2014 and the date of expiry was on 05.10.2016. The entire prosecution has proceeded on the basis that the sample of the i