Mandatory provisions of conducting re-testing within a specified period are crucial and non-compliance leading to prejudice can render the prosecution unsustainable.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made to quash Complaint Case No.7648 dated 01.06.2018 titled as “State vs M/s Mundi & Sons & Others” under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') read with Rules 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, pending for adjudication in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1), apart from the summoning order dated 01.06.2018 (Annexure P-2) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner.

2. As it emerges on perusal of the paper book, on 22.06.2016 Insecticide Inspector, Block Bagga Khurd, Block Mangat, District Ludhiana, along with Agriculture Development Officer visited the shop of M/s Mundi & Sons, V.P.O. Nurpur Bet, District Ludhiana and after making necessary statutory compliances, drew sample of insecticide Pretilachlor 50% EC (Parleen), Batch No.VOIC16M, with manufacturing date as May, 2016 and expiry date as April, 2018, manufactured by M/s Vikas Organic Ind. Corporation, village Panj Grain Kalan, Tehsil & District Faridkot; and marketed by M/s Suminova Agri Science, 334, Scheme No.103, Keshar Bagh Marg, Indore (M.P.). Out of three representative samples collected by the Insecticide Inspector, one of them was sent to the Senior Analyst, Insecticide Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana on 23.06.2016. The report dated 05.07.2016 of the Analyst, Insecticide Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana was received, as per which sample was declared misbranded as it was found contain active ingredient content only 39.87% instead of 50% EC. Against the show cause notice sent to the accused i.e. the dealer, supplier and the manufacturing company, replies were filed by them on 25.07.2016 and 01.08.2016 making a request to send the second part of the sample to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad, so as to controvert the report of Public Analyst. The sample was sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad on 19.09.2016, which was received thereon 25.11.2016 as confirmed on 07.03.2017 and the actual analysis was done on 22.03.2017 as per the report Annexure P-4. After obtaining necessary sanction from the competent authority, the prosecution was launched in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, on 01.06.2018.

3. On the same day i.e. 01.06.2018, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana directed to issue the summons to the accused.

4. Seeking quashing of the complaint and the consequent proceedings, it is contended by the petitioner – one of the accused that retesting of the sample was requested under Section 24(3) of the Act on 01.08.2016 as admitted in the complaint itself and the same was sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad on 19.09.2016. Re-analysis of the sample was done by the Central Insecticide Laboratory on 22.03.2017 i.e. after a period of 273 days, which is gross violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 24(3) of the Act, as said part of the sample was required to be tested within 30 days. It is contended that it is because of this delay in re-analysis of the sample that active ingredient as were found to be 39.8% against 50% EC by the State Public Analyst, Ludhiana that the same on re-analysis after 273 days were found to be nil. It happened due to huge delay of 273 days, causing gross prejudice to the petitioner. It is also urged that learned Trial Court has passed non-speaking summoning order without making any application of mind.

5. Refuting the aforesaid contention, it is contended by the learned State counsel on behalf of the respondent that as the sample was received in the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad with its seal intact and the said sample was re-analyzed on 22.03.2017, therefore, mere delay in analyzing of sample cannot be the reason for quashing of the complaint.

6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the p