The court emphasized the strict adherence to statutory provisions regarding the timeline for re-testing under the Insecticides Act, asserting that non-compliance invalidates the complaint.

JUDGMENT :

Yashvir Singh Rathor, 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.257 dated 01.04.2015 titled as “State vs M/s Modern Khetibari & Beej Store and others” under Sections 3 (k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') read with the Insecticides Rules, 1971, pending for adjudication in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar (Annexure P-1), apart from the summoning order dated 22.12.2016 (Annexure P-2) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners.

2. As it emerges on perusal of the paper book, on 11.12.2012, Insecticide Inspector, Bhogpur, District Jalandhar, visited the shop of M/s Modern Khetibari & Beej Store, Bhogpur, District Jalandhar and after making necessary statutory compliances, drew sample of insecticide Clodinofop Propargyl 15% WP, Batch No.MF-10907-CL, with manufacturing date as 07.10.2011 and expiry date as 06.10.2013., manufactured by M/s Makhteshim Agan India Pvt. Ltd., (now known as M/s Adama India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Out of three representative samples collected by the Insecticide Inspector, one sample was sent to the Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Bathinda on 13.12.2012. The report of the Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Bathinda (dated 26.12.2012) was received, as per which sample was declared misbranded as it did not conform to IS specifications as it contained 13.20% WP of active ingredients as against 15% WP which was registered as per norms. Against the show cause notice sent to the accused i.e. the manufacturing company, reply was filed by it on 12.01.2013 with a request to send the referral part of the sample to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad, so as to controvert the report of Public Analyst. Thereafter, the second sample was sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad on 14.05.2013 and the actual analysis was done on 23.05.2013 as per test report Annexure P-4 according to which active ingredient of Clodinofop Propargyl was found to be 11.46% WP instead of 15% WP and it was found to be misbranded. After obtaining necessary sanction from the competent authority, the prosecution was launched in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, on 01.04.2015.

3. On 22.12.2016, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar summoned the accused to face the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that retesting of the sample was requested under Section 24 (3) of the Act on 12.01.2013 as admitted in the complaint itself but the same was sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad by complainant on 14.05.2013. The sample was reanalysed by the Central Insecticide Laboratory on 23.05.2013 i.e. after a period of 131 days, which is gross violation of the mandatory provisions of (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 was found to be 11.46% against 13.20% WP found by the State Public Analyst. It has happened only due to huge delay of 131 days thereby causing gross prejudice to the petitioner. It is also urged that learned Trial Court has passed a non- speaking order without any application of mind, while issuing process against the petitioner.

5. Refuting the aforesaid contention, it is contended by the learned State counsel on behalf of the respondent that the sample was received in the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad with its seals intact and the said sample was