Montari Industries Ltd. vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of the complaint dated 22.5.90 (Annexure P1) pending before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, District Patiala and all proceedings arising therefrom.

The petitioner is an industrial unit manufacturing insecticides. As per averments made in the petition, one Ashok Chand Insecticides Inspector inspected the premises of M/s Chehal Kheti Sewa Centre, Sirhind, respondent No. 3 on 5.11.88 and took a sample of Milron 75 per cent W.P. of Batch No. 39, allegedly manufactured by the petitioner. The sample was sent for analysis to the Insecticides Quality Control Laboratory at Ludhiana. According to the analysis report submitted by the Senior Analyst of the Laboratory, the sample was misbranded as it did not conform to the ISI specification in respect of percentage of active ingredients test. On the basis of this report Shri Ashok Chand lodged a complaint under Sections 3(k)(i) and 39(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 hereinafter called the Act) read with Section 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules. 1971 copy of which is Annexure P2.

The petitioner assailed the complaint and the proceedings arising out of the same on the ground that the sample was taken on 5.11.88 and report was received from the analyst on 18.11.88 but copy of the analysis report or show cause notice, was never served on the petitioner by the in secticide Inspector. A show cause notice dated 9.1.89 was received from Chief Agricultural Officer, Patiala to which reply Annexure P3 was sent on 20.1,89. In this reply it was mentioned that report of the Insecticide Analyst, Ludhiana was not correct and the sample conformed to the ISI specification. The Chief Agricultural Officer was called upon to get the sample. reanalysed from any of the Central Insecticides Laboratories. It was only in the first week of October, 1990 the petitioner received summons from the court and by that time the petitioner company was deprived of its valuable le right to got the sample reanalysed by the Central Insecticide Laboratory under Section 24 of the Act. The sample had expired in September 1990 while the company was served in October 1990. It was further pleaded that the complaint was liable to be quashed as there was no proper sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The authority did not apply its mind and also did not mention the fact as to who was responsible for mis branding and who should be prosecuted.

In reply filed to the petition it was submitted that sample of the product was taken from the shop of M/s Chehal Kheti Sewa Centre, Sirhind but it was denied that the sample conformed to ISI specification. It was contended that a show cause notice was sent to the petitioner when the sample was found misbranded but the request of the petitioner to send the sample for reanalysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory was not accepted as the power to send the sample for reanalysis is vested with the Court under Section 24(4) of the Act.

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 October, 1988 and it expired in September, 1990. Although the complaint was, filed in May, 1990, the petitioner had no knowledge of the same. Notice of the complaint was received by the petitioner in October, 1990 i.e. after the date of expiry of the product. The petitioner was thus deprived or its important and valuable right to get the sample reanalysed by the Central Insecticide Laboratory under SubSection 4 or Section 24 of the Act. In the written reply it was admitted 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 petitioner and to the show cause notice received by the petitioner 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 vs. State of Haryana and others, 1,989(1) RCR 596 and also on the case Trilok Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1990(3) RCR 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 Ana, lyst on the basis of which complaint was lodged but the accused was summoned by the 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 also, the petitioner learnt about the prosecution only after the process was served on him and by the time he came to know about the complaint, the product of which sample was taken was no longer effective. The petitioner thus could not avail of his right to got 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. vs. The State of Punjab and others, 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 subsection (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 24(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 also relied 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 petitioner hag been deprived of his valuable right to get the sample analysed by Central Insecticide 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.

As a result, the petition succeeds and is hereby accepted visavis. the petitioner. The complaint Annexure P1 and the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner alone. Trial Court be informed accordingly.