National Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. State Of Haryana .

G.S Chahal, J.:— National Organic Chemicals Ltd., New Delhi has moved this criminal miscellaneous under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the complaint dated nil, titled as State Government of Haryana v. Gian Chand, under Sections 29(1)(a) and 17(1)(a) of the Insecticide Act, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra and now transferred as Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal.

2. The petitioner Company is the manufacturer of Insecticides. On 6-12-1988, Sh Moti Ram Verma, Asstt. Plant Protection Officer (F&S), Kurukshetra (declared as Insecticide Inspector) drew sample of insecticide, named Aldrin 30% E.C, Batch No. 32 (in short ‘the substance’) from the stock of M/s. Gian Chand Brij Lal, dealer-1. Manufacturing date of the substance was 5-10-1987 and expiry date as 4-10-1989. The sample was got analysed and it was opined to have active ingredients to be 21.2% Page: 158against the prescribed 30% ingredients. The sample was, thus, found to be misbranded, vide report of the Public Analyst, Annexure P. 1. The petitioner, having come to know about the report of the Quality Control Laboratory (Insecticides) (State Agriculture Department), Kama), got tested the sample from Batch No. 32, and it was found to contain active ingredients 29.69%. Then he, vide letter dated 22-2-1989, Annexure P 2, addressed to the Inspector, requested for the sample to be got re-analysed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory. The petitioner having learnt from dealer 1, about the filing of the complaint and the summoning order, has presented this criminal miscellaneous.

3. Sections 24(3) and (4) of the Insecticides Act provide —

“24. Report of Insecticide Analyst:—

(3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by the Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein, and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken has within twenty-eight days of the receipt of a copy of the report, notified in writing the Insecticide Inspector or the Court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in contrversion of the report.

(4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticide Laboratory, where a person has under subsection (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in contro version of the Insecticide Analyst's report, the Court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or of the accused, cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the Magistrate under sub-section (6) of Section 22 to be sent for test or analysis to the laboratory, which shall make the test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or under the authority of, the Director of the Central Insecticides Laboratory the result thereof, and such report shall be conclusive evidence of facts stated therein.

(5) ———”

4. The petitioner had, vide Annexure P. 2, called upon the Insecticide Inspector to get the substance re-analysed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory. This was the right of the petitioner. However, no sample was sent to the Laboratory for getting the sample re-analysed. A reference to the Zimni order would show that the complaint was presented on 14-6-1989 and notice was issued to the accused-petitioner for 10-8-1989. On the adjourned date, no proceedings could be taken as the Presiding Officer was on departmental training. The case was taken up before the Presiding Officer on 26-9-89 and the accused-persons were ordered to be summoned for 21-11-1989. Prior to this date, the shelf-life of the substance expired on 4-10-1989. The petitioner had no opportunity to request the Court for sending the second sample for re-analysis. The Insecticide Inspector had failed in his, duty under the Act to get the second sample re-analysed from the Laboratory. The opportunity given to the petitioner by the Act was a very valuable right and on account of negligence of the Insecticide Inspector, he has been deprived of the same.

5. The only defence which was possibly open to the petitioner was the reanalysis of the sample from the Laboratory of which he has been deprived for no fault of his. The prosecution, in these circumstances, cannot end in a conviction and the continuation of the prosecution will, thus amount to an abuse of process of the Court. Thereby accept the Criminal miscellaneous and quash the impugned complaint and the subsequent proceedings.