Back
1996 Supreme(P&H) 1634
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
M/s Hindustan Pulverising Mills
Versus
State Of Haryana
Crl. Misc. No. 6174 of 1996,
Decided On : OCTOBER 30, 1996
The manufacturer's right to have the sample tested from the Central Laboratory under Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, is a valuable right that cannot be taken away by the negligence and irresponsible attitude of the complainant.
Headnote:
INSECTICIDES ACT, 1968 - SECTION 24(4) - MANUFACTURER'S RIGHT TO SAMPLE TESTING - EXPIRY OF SAMPLE LIFE - QUASHING OF COMPLAINT - MANUFACTURER'S RIGHT TO PROTECTION UNDER SECTION 24(4) - NEGLIGENT AND IRRESPONSIBLE ATTITUDE OF COMPLAINANT - VALUABLE RIGHT DEPRIVED - COMPLAINT QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of insecticides and pesticides, challenged a complaint filed against it for misbranding and non-adherence to standards of a sample collected from its dealer. The complaint was filed more than five years after the sample was taken, and the sample's life had expired even before the order summoning the petitioner was issued.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner had been deprived of its valuable right to have the sample tested from the Central Laboratory due to the negligent and irresponsible attitude of the complainant. The court found that the complaint was filed without proper application of mind, causing unnecessary inconvenience to the accused and wastage of public expense, time, and manpower.
Issues: Whether the manufacturer's right to have the sample tested from the Central Laboratory under Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, was violated due to the expiry of the sample's life before the complaint was filed and the petitioner was summoned.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, which gives the accused the right to apply to the court or allows the court to direct the sample to be tested from the Central Laboratory. The court held that this statutory right is a weapon of main defense available to an accused to show that the sample collected was not misbranded or violative of the prescribed standards.
Final Decision: The court quashed the complaint and all proceedings taken thereupon, discharging the petitioner. The court also directed the Director, Agriculture, Haryana, to formulate a proper scheme of functioning in the Department within a month and issue appropriate instructions to ensure compliance with the judgments of the court and the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968.
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length.
2. The short submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the facts and circumstances of this case, valuable right available to the defence of the accused has been taken away by negligence and irresponsible attitude of the respondent. To substantiate his submission, the learned counsel has referred to very limited facts. M/s. Hindustan Pulverising Mills, petitioner herein is the manufacturing of various insecticides and pesticides and M/s. Sham Beej Bhandar, Adampur, District Hisar is their dealer. The premises of the dealer were inspected and the sample of Dimethoate 30% EC bearing Batch No. 90 having manufacturing date i.e. Jan 1988 with expiry date December, 1988 was taken by Insecticides Inspector on 22.8.1988. Three samples were taken in accordance with law. One part of the sealed sample was sent to the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory (Insecticides), Karnal for analysis. On analysis, it was found to be misbranded and not adhering to the standard prescribed. After sanction, the complaint was filed by the Department on 3.1.1989 against the dealer only. After lapse of more than five years, an application was filed before the learned Magistrate praying that the manufacturer i.e. the petitioner should be summoned to face the prosecu#30;tion in this case. Consequently vide order dated 1.6.1994, the learned Magistrate directed summoning of the present petitioner and summoned him for 8.8.1994.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Department has fairly conceded that life of the sample had expired even prior to the order of summoning i.e. 1.6.1994.
4. In view of the above facts, there cannot be any dispute that the life of the sample had expired on December, 1988 when the complaint itself was filed in Jan. 1989 and the petitioner was summoned in 1994. Under sub- section 4 of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, a right is given to an accused to make an application to the court or even the court on its own motion can direct the sample to be tested from the Central Laboratory. This statutory right provided under the Act has to be treated as weapon of main defence available to an accused, to show that the sample collected was not mis-branded or it was violative of the standards prescribed.
5. The right of the manufacturer, if he is to be prosecuted for the sample collected from his dealer, has to be placed at par with the dealer. The manufacturer would also be entitled to the same protections as the dealer is entitled to. It is for the Department to see that the compli#30;ance of the provisions of the Act is made. In this regard reference can be made to the following judgments of this case :-
(1) 1991 RCR 336
(2) 1992(1) RCR 224
(3) 1992(1) RCR 244
The consistent view of the court is that the manufacturer has right of protection under section 24(4) of the Act and if the complaint is filed or the manufacturer is summoned after life of the sample taken, a valuable right of the accused is taken away and it is bound to prove fatal to the prosecution launched by the complainant.
At this stage, I consider it appropriate to make reference to the judgment of this Court in the case of Balwant Singh v. State of Haryana, Crl. Misc. 5596-M of 1996, decided on 14.10.96.
After discussing the entire law on the subject, not only the complaint was quashed, but various directions were issued to the State of Punjab for adhering to the statutory provision of the Act.
6 Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1967 SC 970, and of this Court reported as 1992(1) RCR 137, 1992(1) RCR 157, 1992(1) RCR 494, 1992(1) RCR 557, 1994(2) RCR 139, 1996(2) RCR 285 and 1996(3) RCR 117 to substantiate his submissions aforestated.
7. For the reasons afore-stated I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has been deprived of the valuable right which was available to him in l
