Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • I. P. Singh Sindhu
  • Arun Chandra
  • Ravinder Chopra
  • Som Raj Verma
Judges
  • Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.
Acts
  • Section 3(k), 17, 18, 29 & 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (Act for short) read with Rules 27(5)
  • Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
  • Sub-rule 3 of Section 34
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • I. P. Singh Sindhu
  • Arun Chandra
  • Ravinder Chopra
  • Som Raj Verma
Judges
  • Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.
Acts
  • Section 3(k), 17, 18, 29 & 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (Act for short) read with Rules 27(5)
  • Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
  • Sub-rule 3 of Section 34
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Concise Analytical Summary of the Opinion — Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by M/s United Pesticides, Hari Palace Road, Ambala City and its proprietor Trilok Singh seeking quashing of a complaint lodged by respondent No. 1 under Sections 3(k), 17, 18, 29 & 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules and the consequent proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur.

The factual matrix presented in the petition is that the petitioner's firm manufactured pesticides including endosulfan. On 9-4-1987 respondent No. 1 drew a sample of endosulfan 35% from the shop of M/s Kheti Sewa Centre, Ferozepur Cantt. That sample was sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad, and the tested sample showed 30.13% active ingredient instead of the claimed 35%, leading to an allegation of misbranding and the initiation of prosecution against the manufacturers (the petitioners).

Procedurally, the petitioners had earlier filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 287-M of 1989 challenging the same complaint, which was dismissed; the present petition contends different grounds and challenges (noted by the court). The petition sought quashing of the complaint and proceedings on grounds including procedural defects in sampling and insufficiency of sanction to prosecute.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the complaint and ensuing prosecution should be quashed because the Insecticide Inspector sent the sample directly to the Central Insecticides Laboratory instead of to an Insecticide Analyst as appointed under the Act, thereby depriving the accused of a statutory right to controvert the analyst's report.
  2. Whether the sanction for prosecution was validly and adequately granted, having regard to requirements as to applying the mind to who is to be prosecuted and to particulars required to be considered before granting consent to prosecute.
  3. Whether the petition is maintainable in view of the earlier writ petition (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 287-M of 1989) that was dismissed.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

  • The petitioners were deprived of a valuable right to controvert the analysis because the sample was sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory rather than to an Insecticide Analyst appointed under Section 19 of the Insecticide Act; this procedural deviation prejudiced their defence and rendered continuation an abuse of process.
  • There was inordinate or unexplained delay: the sample taken in April 1987 (Batch No. 201 manufactured July 1986; expiry June 1988), the complaint filed on 29-1-1988, but the petitioners only learned of prosecution upon service of process.
  • No valid sanction for prosecution was granted (alleged non-compliance with Section 31(1) of the Act); the sanction paper was informal and did not identify who among the firm/partners was being sanctioned and did not specify the relevant parts of the analyst's report or statutory provisions under which prosecution was sought.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The petition is not maintainable because an earlier petition on the same facts (Cr. Misc. No. 287-M of 1989) had been dismissed.
  • The Insecticide Inspector was empowered to send the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory and to obtain a re-test; a second sample could be sent to another laboratory in India to controvert an Insecticide Analyst's report.
  • Other allegations in the petition were denied (no further particulars provided in the return).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Mohan Singh, (1975) 3 SCC 706 : AIR 1975 SC 1002 Authority for the proposition that dismissal of a prior petition on different grounds does not bar a fresh petition challenging the same complaint on other grounds; quashing is not review or revision of the earlier order. The court relied on this authority to reject respondent's preliminary objection that the present petition was barred by the earlier dismissal; the court held earlier petition raised different grounds and therefore did not preclude the present challenge.
Lachhi Ram v. Inspector, Insecticides, Sri Ganganagar, 1990 Cr. L.J NOC 93 Principle that individual partners or proprietors should not be prosecuted unless there is some nexus between them and the alleged commission of the offence; the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to who committed the offence before granting sanction. The court invoked this principle to find that the sanction (Annexure P.2) was defective because it did not identify who among the firm/partners was to be prosecuted nor indicate the specific offences or report contents—therefore the sanction could not be acted upon.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a stepwise analysis:

  1. Maintainability: The court first considered respondent's objection based on the earlier writ dismissal and found it unsustainable. The petitioners had admitted the earlier dismissal and the court examined the earlier order, determining the earlier petition had been founded on different grounds; therefore the earlier dismissal did not preclude the present petition. The court cited Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Mohan Singh as authority for this approach.
  2. Statutory framework on sampling and analysis: The court examined the Insecticide Act and Rules to determine the proper procedure for analysis of samples. It identified the following statutory provisions relied upon in the reasoning:
    • Section 16 — Establishment of the Central Insecticides Laboratory under the control of a Director (statutory context).
    • Section 19 — Appointment of Insecticide Analysts by notification for specified areas/insecticides.
    • Section 21(1)(c) — Power of Insecticide Inspector to take samples and send them for analysis to the Insecticide Analyst.
    • Section 22(6) — Procedure requiring the inspector to divide and retain one portion and forthwith send one portion to the Insecticide Analyst for test; the other portion is to be produced in court when proceedings are instituted.
    • Sub-rule 3 of Section 34 of the Insecticide Rules — Obligation to send a copy of the memorandum (Form XIII) and specimen impressions to the Insecticide Analyst.
    • Section 24 — Timeframe and consequence of the Insecticide Analyst's report and the mechanism for the person from whom the sample was taken to notify intent to adduce contrary evidence within 28 days; the report is conclusive unless appropriately contested by sending the second sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory.
    Based on these provisions, the court concluded that the statutory scheme contemplates that the initial sample be sent to an Insecticide Analyst (as appointed under Section 19), and that the person whose sample is taken has the statutory right to controvert the Insecticide Analyst's report by sending the second sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory.
  3. Application to facts on sampling: The court observed that in the present case the Insecticide Inspector sent the sample directly to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad. This procedure, the court found, circumvented the statutory sequence and thereby deprived the petitioners of the valuable statutory right to controvert the Insecticide Analyst's report by getting the second sample tested at the Central Laboratory. The court treated this deprivation as prejudicial to the petitioners' defence and as a ground for quashing the complaint.
  4. Sanction to prosecute: The court examined the sanction document (Annexure P.2) and found it defective. The sanction was a cyclostyled form with only the names of M/s Kheti Sewa Centre (including all partners) and M/s United Pesticides filled in; it did not refer to the contents of the analyst's report, did not indicate specific statutory provisions under which the manufacturer/proprietor was sought to be prosecuted, and did not identify the individual proprietor or explain the nexus between him and the alleged offence. Relying on the principle in Lachhi Ram (that sanctioning authority must apply its mind to who committed the offence), the court concluded that the authority had not properly applied its mind and the sanction was invalid.
  5. Cumulative outcome: For the reasons above (procedural defect in analysis and invalid sanction), the court determined that the petitioners were deprived of essential statutory safeguards and that continuation of proceedings would be improper.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

THE PETITION IS ACCEPTED; THE COMPLAINT (ANNEXURE P.1) AND THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARISING THEREFROM ARE QUASHED AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.

Direct consequences and practical implications:

  • The complaint and all consequential proceedings against M/s United Pesticides and its proprietor Trilok Singh were quashed; the trial court is to be informed of this order.
  • The court grounded its decision on two principal defects present on the record: (a) procedural non-compliance in sending the sample directly to the Central Insecticides Laboratory (thereby depriving the accused of the statutory right to a prescribed sequence of analysis and rebuttal); and (b) an invalid and non-specific sanction to prosecute which did not demonstrate that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to who should be prosecuted and on what basis.

Broader precedent-setting note:

The opinion does not purport to lay down a novel legal doctrine beyond the application and interpretation of the statutory provisions and cited authorities; the immediate effect is the quashing of the complaint as against the petitioners and the removal of the impugned proceedings. The court addressed statutory compliance and the need for proper sanctioning procedure, but the opinion does not explicitly state that it establishes a new binding precedent beyond the application of the cited authorities.

Show full summary ...

    United Pesticides And Anr. v. State Of Punjab And Ors

    Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.:— The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by M/s. United Pesticides. Hari Palace Road, Ambala City and its proprietor Trilok Singh with a prayer for quashing of the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 against them under Section 3(k), 17, 18, 29 & 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (Act for short) read with Rules 27(5) of Insecticide Rule, 197 and the consequent proceedings taken on that complaint by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur.

    2. The facts as narrated in the petition may be briefly recapitulated. The petitioner Trilok Singh is proprietor of M/s United Pesticides, Ambala City and this firm manufactured pesticides including the one known as endosulfan. The product is sold through its distributors and dealers. On 9-4-1987, respondent No. 1 had drawn a sample of endosulfan 35% from the shop of M/s. Kheti Sewa Centre, opposite Amar Talkie, Ferozepur Cantt. The same was sent to Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad for analysis and it was found to contain 30.13% active ingredient instead of 35%. So it was alleged that the insecticide was misbranded. The petitioners were impleaded in the complaint as manufacturers of the product.

    3. The petitioners impugned the complaint and the subsequent proceedings on the grounds that they were deprived of a valuable right to controvert the correctness of the report of Insecticide Analyst as instead of sending the sample for analysis to Insecticide Analyst, the respondents had sent the same to Central Insecticides Laboratory. This denial of a valuable right was on account of deliberate conduct of the prosecution as a result of which the petitioners were seriously prejudiced in their defence and to allow the proceedings in the case any further would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. It was further contended that the sample was taken on 9-4-1987 which was from Batch No. 201 and was manufactured in July 1986. It expired in June, 1988. Although the complaint was filed on 29-1-1988 before the expiry of the sample yet the petitioners learnt about their prosecution when the process was served on them. There was delay in launching the prosecution which was not explained. There was no valid sanction for the prosecution of the petitioners and there had not been sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 31(1) of the Act.

    4. In the return filed by respondent No. 1, it was pleaded that earlier too, the petitioners had filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 287-M of 1989 challenging the same complaint and that was dismissed. So the second Page: 680petition on he same facts is not maintainable. On merits it was pleaded that the Insecticide Inspector was fully empowered to send the sample to Central Insecticides Laboratory and for re-test and the second sample could be sent to some other laboratory situated in India, to controvert the report of the Insecticide Analyst. The other allegations made in the petition were denied.

    5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

    6. The preliminary objection taken by the respondent that this petition is not maintainable as earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, is not valid. The petitioners have admitted in para 11 of their petition that earlier petition was dismissed about two years ago and no further proceedings were held. That petition was filed on different grounds. I have perused the order passed in the earlier Writ Petition and find that the grounds taken therein for impugning the complaint and proceedings arising therefrom were different. Since the complaint is being impugned now on other grounds, rejection of prior petition for quashing the same complaint is no bar as quashing does not amount to review or revision. Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs. W.B v. Mohan Singh, (1975) 3 SCC 706 : AIR 1975 SC 1002 is an authority on this point.

    7. It was submitted before me that in the present case respondent No. 1 by sending the sample for analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory deprived the petitioners of their valuable right to rebut the report of the Laboratory and as such the complaint was liable to be quashed This contention of the learned counsel is quite valid. Under the provisions of the Act the sample taken by the Insecticide Inspector is to be sent for analysis to the Insecticide Analyst and not to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. Section 16 of the Act relates to the establishment of Central Insecticides Laboratory by the Central Government under the control of a Director to be appointed by the Central Government to carry out the functions entrusted to it by or under the Act. Section 19 of the Act provides:—

    “The Central Government or a State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint persons in such number as if thinks fit and possessing such technical and other qualifications as may be prescribed to be Insecticide Analysis for such areas and in respect of such insecticides or class of insecticides as may be specified in the notification.”

    8. The various provisions of the Act make it clear that the Insecticide Inspectors are to send the sample for analysis to an Insecticide Analyst as appointed under Section 19 of the Act.

    9. Section 22 of the Act lays down the procedure to be followed by Insecticide Inspectors and Sub-section 6 of this Section reads as under:—

    “The Insecticide Inspector shall restore one portion of a sample so divided or one container as the case may be to the person from whom he takes it and shall retain the remainder and dispose of the same as follows:— (i) One portion or container, he shall forthwith send to the Insecticide Analyst for test or alalysis; and (ii) the second, he shall produce to the court before which proceedings if any, are instituted in respect of the insecticide”.

    10. Section 21(1) of the Act deals with the powers of Insecticide Inspector and Sub-section (c) of this section empowers the Insecticide Inspector to take samples of insecticide and send such samples for analysis to the Insecticide Analyst for test in the prescribed manner. Sub-rule 3 of Section 34 of the Insecticide Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the Insecticide Inspector to send a copy of the memorandum in Form XIII Page: 681together with his specimen impression of the seals and of the seals, if any, of the person from whom he takes such samples, separately by registered post or by hand to the Insecticide Analyst. It is thus clear that the Insecticide Inspector after taking the sample is to send the sample for analysis to the Insesticide Analyst and not directly to the Central Insecticide Laboratory. If the sample is got analysed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory, then the persons facing prosecution are deprived of their right to controvert analysis report by getting the other sample tested from the Central Insecticide Laboratory.

    11. Section 24 of the Act lays down that the Insecticide Analyst to whom a sample of insecticide has been submitted for test, shall submit his report to the Insecticide Inspector within a period of sixty days and the Insecticide Inspector on receipt there of shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken. Any document purporting to be a report signed by an Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the per son from whom the sample was taken within twenty eight days of receipt of the copy of the report notified in writing to the insecticide Inspector or the court before which any proceeding in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in contravention of the report. The report of the Insecticide Analyst can be controverted by sending the second sample for test or analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory and that report then will be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. In the instant case, the Insecticide Inspector sent the sample for analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. Faridabad as mentioned in para 6 of the complaint and thus deprived the petitioners of their valuable right to controvert the report. When a valuable right is conferred by the provisions of the Act, it is to be expected that the prosecution will not be denied to the person against whom prosecution is launched. The right conferred on the petitioners is a valuable one in the sense that the petitioners could controvert the report of the Insecticide Analyst by getting the sample tested from the Central Insecticide Laboratory which report would have been conclusive evidence of its contents. The petitioners in this case were deprived of their defence and the complaint is liable to be quashed on this ground.

    12. Next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no valid sanction granted for prosecution of the petitioners, is also well merited. The sanction to prosecute is an important factor which constitutes a condition precedent to the launching of the prosecution and it is not an idle formality. A photostat copy of the sanction granted in the case is Annexure P. 2. The sanction was granted after perusal of the relevant record placed before the sanctioning authority of M/s Kheti Sewa Centre, Ferozepur Cantt. It was granted on a cyclo styled form and only the names of M/s Kheti Sewa Centre, Ferozepur Cantt (including all partners) and M/s United Pesticides Ambala, City were filled in.

    13. There is no mention of the contents of the report of the Analyst nor there is any mention of specific provisions of law under which manufacturer is sought to be prosecuted. No sanction was granted to prosecute the proprietor of the firm. Even in the complaint, it is not mentioned as to what act was committed by the proprietor or by the firm. In the case of Lachhi Ram v. Inspector, Insecticides, Sri Ganganagar, Sri Gangenagar, 1990 Cr. L.J NOC 93, it was held that individual partners of the firm cannot be prosecuted unless there pay be some nexus between them and the commission of the crime. This aspect of the case it required to be considered by the authority giving the consent. The authority competent to give consent is required to apply its mind as to who is perpetrator, of the crime. The application Page: 682of the mind is not only required to be made as to what offence is committed but also as to who committed the same and who is to be prosecuted.

    14. In the present case there had not been proper appreciation of the facts before the sanction to prosecute was granted. Sanction of prosecution therefore, cannot be acted upon to record the conviction of the petitioners and the petition is to be allowed on this ground also

    15. For the reasons recorded above, the petition is accepted and the complaint Annexure P 1 and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed as against the petitioners. The trial court be informed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    United Pesticides And Anr. v. State Of Punjab And Ors
    (Jan 28, 1992)