AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.
M/s Montari Industries Limited and its Quality Assurance Manager have filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint dated 891989 titled State v. Harbans Lal and others (Annexure P/1 pending before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samana, District Patiala and all the proceedings arising therefrom.
Petitioner No.1 is an Industrial Unit manufacturing insecticides and petitioner No. 2 is its Quality Assurance Manager. The complaint Annexure P/1 was filed against them and others on the allegations that on 111988 the Insecticides Inspector checked the premises of M/s Punjab Agro Service Centre, Patran Mandi and took a sample of Miloron75 WP (Isoproturon) weedicide manufactured by M/s Montari Industries Ltd. having batch No 10 . The sample was taken according to the provisions laid down under Insecticides Act, 2968 (Act for short). The sample was drawn in three sealed packages out of which one scaled, package was handed over to Shri Harbans Lal partner of the firm and one sealed package was sent to Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana for analysis. The third sealed sample was deposited with Chief Agricultural Officer, Patiala. According to the analyst''s report submitted by senior analyst of the laboratory the sample was found misbranded as it did not conform to the I.S.I. specification in respect of its percentage of active ingredient contents. The complaint was, thus, filed for trial of the accused for offences under Sections 3 (k)(i) and 29 (1)(a) of Insecticides Act, 1968.
Before filing of the complaint a show cause notice was served on petitioner No. 1 on 881988 by the Insecticides Inspector. Annexure P/2. A reply to this notice was sent vide letter dated 2211989 wherein it was asserted that the sample conformed to the required specification and a request was made that sample may be got reanalysed in the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad. Nothing was heard by the petitioners thereafter till they, received summons in the third week of August, 1990. The prosecution is now assailed by the petitioners on the ground that the complaint was filed after a delay of 1 year and 9 months of the collection of the sample and petitioner No. 2 was served after the sample had expired. The petitioners were denied a valuable right of having the sample retested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory. under Section 24 (4) of the Act. The sample was manufactured in December, 1987 and it had expired in November, 1989. Although the complaint was filed in September 1989, the accused did not appear in Court till 221990. Application for summoning petitioner No. 2 was moved on 1471990 long after the sample had expired. It was further pleaded that there was no proper sanction to prosecute the petitioners. The sanction was granted on a cyclostyled form wherein names were filled in. It showed complete nonapplication of mind. No sanction was granted for prosecution of petitioner No. 2. Copy of insecticide analyst report was. never served on the petitioners.
In reply filed to the petition it was contended that a show cause notice was sent to the petitioner along with copy of the test report and the petitioner No.1 in its reply requested the Chief Agricultural Officer, Bhatinda for reanalysis, but as per the Insecticides Act the second sample could be sent for analysis only through the Court, and the petitioner did not apply for reanalysis to the Court. The petitioners intentionally delayed the due process of the Court and ultimately the sample expired.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the sample was manufactured in December, 1987 and it expired in November, 1989. Although the complaint was filed in September, 1989, the petitioners had no knowledge of the same. Notice of the complaint was received by the petitioner in August, 1990 i.e. after the date of expiry of the product. The petitioners were, thus, deprived of their important and valuable right to get the sample reanalysed by the Central Insecticides Laboratory, under Sub section (4) of Section 24 of the Act. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the power to send the sample for reanalysis is vested with the Court alone and the petitioner could not move the Court for getting the sample reanalysed till it had notice of the prosecution launched against it. Moreover, copy of the report of the analysis was also not supplied to the petitioners and to the show cause notice received by the petitioners an appropriate reply was immediately sent assailing the report that the product did not conform to ISI specification. In support of his contention. the learned counsel placed reliance on the case of S.K. Ahooja v. State of Haryana and others, 1989 (1) RCR(Crl.) 596 (P&H) and also on the case of Trilok Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1990 (3) Recent CR 194.
The case of S.K. Ahooja referred to above rested on identical facts. The sample of pesticide taken in the case was found substandard by Analyst on the basis of which complaint was lodged but the accused was summoned the by Court after expiry date of pesticide. It was held that this deprived the accused of its right to get the second sample examined by Central Insecticide Laboratory under Section 24 (4) of the Act and the proceedings were quashed. In this case, the petitioners learnt about the prosecution only after the process was served on them and by the time they came to know about the complaint, the product of which sample was taken, was no longer effective. The petitioners thus, could not avail of their right to get the second sample analysed as per provisions of the law and in this way to controvert the correctness of the report of the Analyst on which the prosecution was based. As regards the delivery of copy of the report to the manufacturer it has been observed in the case of H. Lange v. The State of Punjab and others, 1986(1) Recent Criminal Reports 179 : 1986 (1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 383 , as follows :
"It is correct that under Subsection (2) of Section 24, there is no obligation on the Insecticide Inspector to supply a copy of the report of the Analyst to the manufacturer of the insecticide, but if the manufacturer of insecticide is sought to be prosecuted, there is no reason why a copy of the report should not be supplied to him. The object of making provision for delivery of the copy of the report is to give an opportunity to the person concerned to controvert the report in case he is prosecuted. Therefore, irrespective of the provision contained in sub section (2) the ends of justice demand that the person who is sought to be prosecuted must be supplied with a copy of the report. The valuable right to get the sample analysed under Section 241(4) of the Act before the expiry date, has been denied to the manufacturer. Thus, undue and unexplained delay in launching the prosecution even after more than ten months of the receipt of the report of the Analyst, or the continuance of proceedings against the manufacturer on the basis of such a report in my opinion, would amount to abuse of the process of the Court, in the present case," This authority was alsorelied upon in the case of Trilok Singh (supra).
Considering the facts of the present case and observations made in the cases referred above, I find that since the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right to get the sample analysed by Central Insecticides Laboratory, the complaint and proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed. It will be needless to go into other grounds taken in the petition.
9 As a result, the petition succeeds and is hereby accepted via a vis the petitioners. The complaint Annexure P/1 and the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners only. Trial Court be informed accordingly.