Charan Singh and Co.and others vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as ''the Code'') by M/s. Charan Singh and Co., New Market, Qadian, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, through its partner Shri Sukhchain Singh (Dealer); M/s. Friends Agro Chemicals (India), Chowk Hussainpura, Hide Market, GT Road, Amritsar, through its partner Shri Deepak Sharma (Distributor) and M/s. Somanil Chemicals 19A, New Mandi, Muzzafar Nagar (UP), through Shri V.K. Gupta, its Marketing Manager (Manufacturer), whereby they have prayed that complaint dated 6.1.1994 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, under Section 3(k) (i), 17 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 against them be quashed.

The facts which have given rise to the prosecution of the petitioners are that on 17.12.1991, Shri Narinder Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Gurdaspur allegedly visited the business premises of M/s. Charan Singh and Co., Qadian. At the relevant time, Shri Parnam Singh, partner of the firm was sitting at the business premises. He was responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. This firm was dealing in insecticides weedicides under the licence issued to them by the Licensing Authority i.e Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur. After disclosing his identity to Shri Parnam Singh that he was Insecticide Inspector authorised to take samples of the insecticides under the Insecticide Act, 1968 meant for sale to the public, and after complying with the necessary formalities prescribed under the Act, took sample of 24D 34% EC, Batch No. 104, manufactured by M/s Somanil Chemicals, 19A, New Mandi, Muzzafar Nagar (UP) and supplied to them by M/s Friends Agro Chemicals (India), Chowk Hussain Pura Market, GT Road, Amritsar, vide Bill No. 33, dated 9.12.1991. It was weedicides meant for sale to the agriculturists for being used in their fields. He took three sealed tins of 24 D 34% EC, Batch No. 104 measuring 500 mls each against payment of Rs. 199.29 vide bill No. 388 dated 17.12.1991. The bill was duly signed by Parnam Singh, representative of the firm. The three sealed tins so purchased were put in three dry and clean cotton bags in the same condition and an information slip was also put in each bag which was signed by the complainant. Each of the cotton bags was secured by the thread and was sealed with the seal bearing impression ''Agri.Deptt(PP), Punjab'' One of the samples was given to Parnam Singh. Notice and information form XII was given to Parnam Singh which was duly signed by him. Seal impression was put on each of the forms prepared in duplicate. Two samples with seals intact were deposited with Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur in his office. Out of these two samples deposited in the office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur. One sample (tin) was sent to Senior Analyst, PAS I Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Near Tehsil Officer, Amritsar for analysis as per the provisions of section 21(6) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The Senior Analyst found an analysis of the sample tin that sample did not conform to ISI specifications in respect to its active ingredients contents. Vide letter No. 1262 dated 7.2.1992, copy of this analysis report was endorsed to the accused. On the receipt of the analysis report recorded by Senior Analyst, Insecticide Laboratory, Amritsar, a Complaint was instituted under sections 3(K) (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules against the aforesaid petitioners by Shri Narinder Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Gurdaspur in the court of chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur on 6.1.1994. Complaint dated 6.1.1994 is Annexure P.2. At the spot form No. XII (Annexure P.1) was filled up by the Insecticide Inspector when the sample was taken in which the date of expiry of said weedicide was recorded as October, 1993.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AAG for the State of Punjab and have gone through the record.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that complaint was instituted on 6.1.1994 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur by Shri Narinder Singh, Insecticide Inspector. On 6.1.1994 the complaint was registered and the accused were ordered to be summoned for 3.3.1994. Shelf life of the weedicide had expired in October, 1993. The accused could have exercised the right to have sample reanalysed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory only after 6.1.1994. The petitioner was deprived of a very valuable right of asking the Court to have the sample reanalysed by the Central Insecticide Laboratory. Section 24, subsection (4) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (in short ''the Act'') has given this right to have the sample reanalysed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory. It has been submitted that this inaction on the part of the prosecution has made this right granted to the accused by section 24, subsection (4) of the Act illusory, redundant nugatory and mearingless. In this case, the Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory signed the analysis report on 29.1.1992. Show cause notice dated 7.2.1992 was given to the accused as to why complaint be not instituted against them, when the Sr. Analyst Insecticide Testing Laboratory has found the sample as nonconforming to the IS specifications in respect of active ingredients contents. The accused gave reply dated 17.2.1992 to the showcause notice. The Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur replied to the accused that their request regarding re analysis of sample could be considered only by the court in view of the provisions of section 24(4) of the Act and not by him.

In this case the sample was taken on 17.12.1991. The Analysis report recorded by the Senior analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amritsar was signed on 7.2.1992. Complaint Annexure P.2 was instituted in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur on 6.1.1994. The accused expressed his intention to have the sample reanalysed from the Central Testing Laboratory in February, 1992. This request was not entertained by the Chief Agricultural Officer Gurdaspur saying that this request could be made before the court for its consideration in view of the provisions of section 24, subsection 4 of the Act. In support of this contention that the petitioners have been deprived of a very valuable right granted to them by section 24(4) of the Act by the casual attitude of the prosecution and the complaint is liable to be quashed on this short ground, he has drawn my attention to M/s Jai Chemicals v. State of Punjab, 1994(3) Recent Criminal Reports 610 ; Mr. H. Lange, Managing Director M/s. Byee (India) Ltd. v. The State of Punjab and another, 1986(1) Recent Criminal Reports 176 , S.K. Ahooja v. State of Haryana, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 596 ; and Sant Lal and another v. State of Haryana, 1995(2) Recent Criminal Reports 101.

In M/s. Jai Chemicals v. State of Punjab (supra) it was held that the petitioners had a right to get the second sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory in order to controvert the report of the Regional Pesticide Testing Laboratory. This fact was also brought to the notice of the Chief Agricultural Officer, Bathinda, but as the complaint was filed in the Court after the expiry of shelf life of the sample, the petitioners were deprived of their valuable right to make prayer to the Court for reanalysis of the sample from the Director, Central Insecticides Laboratory and the complaint was liable to be quashed on this ground alone." Vide Annexure R.3, the request of the accused for reanalysis of the sample was declined by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur.

In S.K. Ahooja v. State of Haryana and others (supra) it was held that the petitioner having not been given an opportunity to controvert report and the prosecution having been launched more than two years after the sample was purchased by the Insecticide Inspector, the prosecution must fail.

In Sant Lal and another v. State of Haryana (supra) it was held that the complaint was liable to be quashed where the same was instituted after the shelf life of insecticide had expired and the accused was deprived of having the second sample reanalysed from the Central Insecticides Testing Laboratory.

Section 24 of the Act is reproduced as under:

"(1) The Insecticides Analyst to whom a sample of an insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis under subsection (6) of section 22, shall, within a period of sixty days, deliver to the Insecide Inspector submitting it a signed report in duplicate in the prescribed form.

(2) The Insecticide Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and shall retain the other copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the sample.

(3) 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 person from whom the sample was taken has within twentyeight 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 controversion of the report.

(4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory where a person has under subsection (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion 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 subsection (6) of section 22 to be sent for test or analysis to the said 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 the facts stated therein.

(5) The cost of test or analysis made by the Central Insecticides Laboratory under subsection (4) shall be paid by the complainant or the accused, as the court shall direct."

It is thus obvious that the accused have been deprived of their valuable right granted to them by section 24, subsection (4) of the Act to have the sample reanalysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory. The continuation of this complaint Annexure P.2 would be abuse of the process of the Court and it would be flogging a dead horse. The object of criminal law is to the harass the accused but to vindicate and subserve the interest of society.

In view of the view taken by this Court in the precedent cited above with which I agree and the provisions of section 24, subsection (4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, this petition is accepted and the complaint Annexure P.2 is quashed. JUDGMENT dated 6.1.1994 summoning the accused for their trial is also quashed.