D.H.Desai vs State of Punjab through, Insecticides Inspector, Amritsar

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Doctor D. H. Desai, the present petitioner is Senior Manager Laboratory of M/s. Gujrat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Company Limited, Narmadaragar District Baruch (Gujarat). Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar issued a licence in the name of the company for the purpose of selling, stocking and exhibiting for sale and distributing the insecticides. On 1761991 Baldev Singh insecticides Inspector visited the premises of the Company at Amritsar and after disclosing his identity purchased three tins of five litres packing of Butachlor 50% E.C. brand Narmadachlor which was manufactured by the company, for analysis. One sample was sent to the Insecticides Analyst, Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh and on analysis the Analyst opined that the sample sent to him was misbranded since it contained 41.9% E. C. W/W of Butachlor as against the guaranteed percentage of 50% as labelled on the container and the same was not in conformity with the relevant ISI specifications with respect to its per cent active ingredient contents. On these allegations a complaint was filed against the petitioner and some other employees of the company for an offence under Section 29 read with Sections 3(k)(i) 17, 11 and 33 of the Insecticide''s Act and Rule 10 of the Insecticides Rules 1971 as also under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint Annexure P2 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

It was averred in the petition that date of manufacturing of the product of which sample was taken, was 23121989 and its expiry dated was 22.12.1991. The complaint was filed in the court on 2.12.1991 vide summoning order copy of which was annexure P3. By the time petitioner learnt about the filing of the complaint, shelf life of the insecticide had already expired and the petitioner was deprived of his right to get the second sample analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory. He was denied of an opportunity to controvert the correctness of the report of the analyst. It was further pleaded that on receipt of the report of the analysts a show cause notice was given to the manufacturers as to why licence granted under the Insecticides Act, 1986, may not be cancelled. In reply to show cause notice dated 2.8.1991 it was specifically contended that they were not satisfied with the report of the Analyst, Laboratory, Chandigarh and the sample be sent for reanalysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory but instead of sending the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory for retesting, the licence of the Company was cancelled by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar vide his order dated 24.8.1991.

In the return filed by the respondent this fact was admitted that Butachlor 50% E.C. of which sample was taken was manufactured on 23.12.1989 and date of expiry was 22.12.1991 but it was contended that the complaint was filed not after the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticides and it was filed on 2.12.1991. Copy of the report of the insecticides Analyst was served on the petitioner but the petitioner failed to notify his intention in writing for reanalysis of the sample with in 28 days of the receipt of the analysis report and thus he lost his right to move a prayer for reanalysis and the report of the analyst had thus become conclusive.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that a prayer for quashing this very complaint was earlier made by Assistant Marketing Manager and Marketing Manager of the Company who were coaccused with the petitioner and their prayer was allowed and the complaint was quashed qua them vide judgment dated 30.7.1992 by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 723M of 1992 U.B. Bakana and another v. State of Punjab. The allegations in the complaint against the petitioner are also to the same effect and the case against the petitioner stood on the same footing, as he too was deprived of his valuable right to get the sample reanalysed by the Central Insecticides Laboratory having received notice of the complaint after the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide.

There is no denial of the fact that the shelf life of the insecticide of which sample was seized expired on 22.12.1991. The complaint was filed in court on 2.12.1991 but the petitioner and others were summoned for 29.1.1992 and by the time the petitioner received notice of the complaint shelf life of the insecticide had expired. When the show cause notice was issued to the manufacturers they intimated to the respondent vide R1 that they were not satisfied with the report of the Regional Insecticides Laboratory and they had intention to controvert the same. The respondent did not send the sample for reanalysis by the Central Insecticides Laboratory nor any reply was given to the manufacturers. Rather complaint was instituted after a long delay and notice of the same could not be saved on the petitioner before the expiry of shelf life of the sample. The petitioner was thus deprived of a valuable right to make a prayer to the court for reanalysis of the sample by the Central Insecticides Laboratory. As the petitioner has been deprived of this right to defend his case, the trial cannot culminate in his conviction and continuance of proceedings in these circumstances will amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

As a result I accept this petition and quash the complaint Annexure P2 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, and all consent proceedings arising therefrom.