Delay in prosecution unjustly denies manufacturers the right to evidence, leading to quashing of complaints against directors lacking direct involvement in misbranding offenses.

1. These three petitions are filed under S.482, Crl. P.C. for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 83 of 1983 on the file of the court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoni in C.C. No. 125 of 1983 on the file of the VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur and C.C. No. 120/82 on the file of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dharmavaram respectively.

2. In C.C. No. 83 of 1983 on the file of the court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Adoni a complaint was filed by the Deputy Director of Agriculture (Training) Kurnool, under S.29(1)(a)(i) read with S.3(k)(i) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred as the Act) against eight accused. It is stated in the complaint that on 2-1-1982 at 11.00 A.M. Sri B. Hussain Reddy, Quality Control Inspector inspected the shop of the Ist accused at Adoni and found three bags of agricultural sulphur each weighing 50 K.Gs. manufactured by M/s. I.A. and I.C. Private Ltd., Bombay (A-6) and supplied to the dealer (A-1). The Inspector found other insecticides in the premises at the time of inspection and they were stocked there for sale. A sample was taken from the three bags of agricultural sulphur 85% DP W/W. The said product was manufactured by A-6 company during June, 1981 (Batch No. 55) and its date of expiry was May, 1983. The quality Control Inspector served a notice in Form 12 to A-5 in the presence of mediators intimating the purpose for which the sample was being drawn. He took 600 grams of agricultural sulphur at the rate of 200 grams from each bag. He mixed it and divided into three equal parts. Eash part was kept in a polyethene bag and sealed. The Inspector paid Rs. 2/- to A-5 towards the cost of 600 grams of sulphur alleged to have been purchased by him. He gave one sample packet to A-5 under his acknowledgment. One of the sample packets was sent for analysis to the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Senior Analyst) Insecticides Laboratory, Ananthapur. On analysis, the Analyst opined that the sample sent to him was misbranded since it contained only 72-70% D.P.W/W of sulphur as against the guaranteed percentage of 85% as labelled on the bags. On receipt of the report, the Inspector served a copy of the report on Accused No. 5 on 18-5-1982 and obtained his acknowledgment. The Inspector seized the three bags of misbranded Agricultural sulphur under a panchanama in the presence of two mediators and produced the seized stock before the court for custody on the very same day i.e. on 18-1-1982. On behalf of accused No. 1 it was notified in writing on 31-9-1982 to the Inspector that evidence will be adduced in contravention of the report of the analyst. Accused No. 1 filed Crl. M.P. No. 652 of 1982 to send the sample for analysis. That petition was allowed. The Inspector deposited the sample in the court on 16-6-1982. It was despatched to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Bombay on 28-7-1982 by the Court. The report of the Central Insecticides laboratory Bombay, also reveals that the sample sent to it has shown a low ingredient of 51.4% W/W as against the guaranteed percentage of 85% B.P.W/W. A charge sheet was filed on 28-2-1983 against Accused Nos. 1 to 8 of whom Accused No. 6 is the manufacturing firm at Bombay Accused No. 7 is the Managing Director of Accused No. 6 firm and accused No. 8 is the Chief Chemist of the said firm. Crl MP. No. 1805/83 is filed by Accused Nos. 6, 7 and 8 to quash the proceedings in the said C.C.No. 83/83.

3. In C.C. No. 125 of 1983 on the file of the court of the