Hindustan Pulverising Mills vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Shri Prem Aggarwal partner of M/s Hindustan Pulverising Mills, Azadpur, Delhi has filed the present petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing compliant Annexure P1 and consequent proceedings under Sections 17 (1) and 3 (k) of the Insecticides Act, 1986 (Act for short) pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind.

According to averments made in the complaint Annexure P. 1. Quality Control Inspector Hari Singh made a surprise check on the premises of M/s Hanuman Seed Store, Krishna Street, Narwana on August 31, 1988. He checked the stocks of the firm and drew a sample of Endosulphan 35% (Endohit) which was manufactured by the petitioner. The sample was sent for analysis of Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal, Haryana, who in his report declared the insecticide as misbranded. A show cause notice was sent to the firm alongwith copy of Analysis report. M/s Hanuman Seeds Store Narwana and the petitioner who is manufacturer of the article were alleged to have violated the provisions of the Act. Hence the complaint was filed.

The petitioner challenged its prosecution on the ground that although the sample was taken in August 1988 the complaint was filed in April, 1989. The petitioner was summoned for the first time in October, 1991. By that time the shelf life of the sample had already expired and the petitioner was deprived of his right to get the second sample analysed from Central Insecticides Laboratory in order to controvert the report of Senior Analyst Quality Control, Karnal. The report of the Senior Analyst was also not sent to the petitioner. It was further averred in the petition that there was no reference in the complaint as in what manner the petitioner was liable for the commission of any offence. In the absence of any allegations for averments in the complaint to that effect the complaint Annexure P.1 was not maintainable against the petitioner. A further ground that no valid sanction was obtained before launching prosecution of the petitioner was also taken.

In the return filed by the respondent it was maintained that there was no provision in the Act to send the analysis report to the manufacturing firm and it was for the dealer appointed by the petitioner to apply for retesting of the insecticide within 28 days of the receipt of the copy of the analysis report as provided under Section 24 (3) of the Act. It was further contended that since the sample was found misbranded the petitioner was liable for the offence being manufacturer of Endosulphan and for supplying misbranded insecticide to his dealer. Regarding consent order it was alleged that permission for initiation of prosecution against the dealer and manufacturer was validly granted and the complaint was not liable to be quashed on account of any infirmity on that parties.

I have heard the leaned counsel for the parties.

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that stand taken by the respondent that no notice under Section 24(2) of the Act was required to be sent to the petitioner was without any basis and judicial verdict has been given in various cases of the effect that when manufacturer is to be prosecuted for an offence for supplying misbranded insecticide to a dealer a copy of the report of the analyst is required to be sent to him. In support of his contention the leaned counsel referred to the came of H. Lange v. The State of Punjab, 1986(1) Recent Criminal Reports 176 and Trilok Singh v. The State of Punjab and another, 1990(3) Recent Criminal Reports 195. In view of these authorities a copy of the report of the analyst was required to be served on the petitioner in case he was to be prosecuted for supplying misbranded article to his dealer as for want of copy of the report of the analyst the petitioner was deprived of his valuable right to rebut the report and to put up a proper defence.

The petitioner was further deprived of his right to get the sample analysed from Central Insecticides Laboratory as by the time he appeared in court the sample had expired. The article of which sample was seized was manufactured in July 1988 and its expiry date was June, 1990. The petitioner was summoned for the first time in October, 1991 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind and thus there was hardly any time for the petitioner to make an application to the court for getting the second sample reanalyzed. The complaint is, therefore, liable to be quashed on this ground also.

A perusal of the complaint Annexure P.1 shows that there are no averments in the complaint as to in what manner the petitioner was concerned with the commission of the offence. There is simply a prayer in the complaint that Dharmvir Singh owner of M/s Hanuman Seed Store, Narwana and manufacturer Hindustan Pulverising Mills Bakali, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi may be tried and punished. Even this averment is not made that it was the petitioner who supplied the alleged misbranded article to the dealer. In the absence of any allegation or averment in the complaint as to how the petitioner was liable for the commission of the offence, the complaint against the petitioner is not maintainable. Sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner is also not valid. Consent order Annexure P3 does not mention the name of any person who was to be prosecuted. This fact is also not revealed as to how the sample was found misbranded and how the petitioner had violated the provisions of the Act. The sanctioning authority does not appear to have satisfied itself that the case for sanction was made out. Sanction to prosecute is an important factor which constitutes a condition precedent and it is not an idle formality. Consent order Annexure P1 is not a valid order and cannot be acted upon to record the conviction of the petitioner. In view of the reason mentioned above, the continuation of the complaint will amount to an abuse of the process of the court and the same is liable to be quashed.

As a result I accept the petition, quash the complaint Annexure P.1 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner.