Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(MP) 659

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
Vishesh Bansal (M.D.) S/o Tarun Kumar Bansal - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Misc. Criminal Case No. 52793 of 2020, MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 99 of 2021, MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 103 of 2021, MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 106 of 2021, MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 109 of 2021
Decided on : 07-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :SHRI ANIL KHARE – SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS. TANVI K. AGRAWAL– ADVOCATE )
For the Respondent:SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR – GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

The failure to issue a notice under Section 24(2) of the Insecticides Act violated the applicants' rights to have the sample tested, leading to the quashing of the complaint.

Headnote:(A) Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 24(2), 24(3), and 24(4) - Complaint for misbranding of insecticide - Applicants challenged proceedings on grounds of violation of statutory rights to have sample tested - Court found no notice under Section 24(2) was issued to applicants, violating their rights - The applicants expressed intention to adduce evidence in contraversion of the report within the stipulated time, but the complainant failed to send the sample for analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, thus violating the mandatory provisions of the Act. (Paras 9, 23, 29, 30)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of proceedings - The court quashed the complaint and all consequential proceedings due to the violation of the applicants' rights under the Insecticides Act. (Paras 30)

ORDER :

1. It is submitted by counsel for the applicants that except the date of report of the Insecticide Analyst and date of the applications, by which, intention to adduce evidence in contraversion of the report of Insecticide Analyst, all other questions of law are identical and in all the cases, application under Section 24 (3) of the Insecticide Act was filed within a period of 28 days from the date of report of Insecticide Analyst.

2. Accordingly, by this common order, M.Cr.C.No.99/2021, M.Cr.C.No. 103/2021, M.Cr.C.No.106/2021 and M.Cr.C.No.109/2021 are being decided.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts of M.Cr.C.No.52793/2020 are taken into consideration.

4. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the following relief :-

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble High Court be pleased to set aside the Complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and all consequential proceedings arising thereof, in RCT Case No.739/2019, in the interest of justice.”

5. It is submitted by counsel for the applicants that applicant no.1 is Managing Director of Vizien Organics, Delhi and applicant no. 2 is working as Quality Controller, in Vizien Organics, Zonal Office, Indore.

6. It is the case of the prosecution that a complaint was filed on the allegations that in the month of June-July 2018, complaints were received that on account of use of Savera Fafundi (Carbendazim + Mancozeb 12%+36%), the crops were destroyed. Accordingly, sample of Savera Fafudi was lifted from M/s. Harsh Agro Agency on 3.7.2018 by Dy. Director, Agriculture, Harda. By letter dated 4.7.2018, the sample was sent to Insecticide Analyst for testing. Savera Fafundi was sold by M/s Harsh Agro Agency and the documents pertaining to sale of said insecticide were also seized from the shop. On 12.7.2018 Insecticide Analyst submitted its report that the sample is misbranded and it was found that in place 12% only 1.06% of Carbendazim was found whereas in place of 36% no Mancozeb was found at all. A show cause notice dated 6-7-2018 was issued to M/s Harsh Agro Agency. Since the replies submitted by M/s Harsh Agro Agency as well as by the Manufacturer were not found to be satisfied, therefore, license issued in favor of M/s Harsh Agro Agency was cancelled. Accordingly, it was pleaded that complaint for offence under Section 3 (k) (l) of Insecticide Act has been committed which is punishable under Section 29(1) (A) of Insecticide Act is being filed after due information to the accused persons.

7. From the plain reading of the entire complaint, it is clear that there is no reference to the notice which was required under Section 24 of Insecticide Act.

8. It is submitted by Counsel for the applicants that a restrain order dated 20.7.2018 was issued to the applicants along with the copy of report of Insecticide Analyst. Although, this notice was not issued under Section 24(2) of Insecticide Act, but in spite of that the applicants made an application on 6.8.2018 for sending the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. However, no action was taken on the said report and a complaint was filed. An application was filed by the applicants before the Trial Court for sending the sample to the Laboratory. However, the said application was rejected by the Trial Court/CJM, Harda, District Harda by order dated 16.1.2019 on the ground that the application was filed after 161 days.

9. By this application, the applicants have challenged the proceedings on the ground that no notice as required under Section 24 (2) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 was issued to the applicants and their valuable right of getting the sample tested from a Central Laboratory has been violated.

10. By referring to restriction order issued by Dy. Director, Agriculture, Harda, it is submitted by counsel for the applicants that it was the only order which was sent to the applicants along with copy of the report of Insecticides Analyst. The applicants thereafter moved an applic