National Organic Chemicals Industries Ltd. vs State of Haryana

G.S. Chahal, J.

National Organic Chemicals Industries Ltd., petitioner, through this criminal miscellaneous u/s 482 Cr.P.C., seeks quashing of the complaint u/s 29(1)(a) of the Insecticiences Act, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri.

The petitioner Company is the manufacturer of various pesticides insecticides, including Monocrotophos 36% 8 L. (Monocil) (`briefly the substance''). On 241288, Sh. Ranbir Singh, Assistant Plant Protection Officer (Fumigation) drew a sample of Monocrotophos 36% S.L. (Monicil), Batch No. 0 103 from the premises of M/s Chowan Agriculture Store, Mustafahad, District Ambala. The sample was sent for analysis. It was found to contain active ingredient 31.3% as against 36%. On 6689 the complaint was filed after obtaining sanction of the Director of Agriculture, Chandigarh on 16589, Annexure P3.

The petitioner challenges the prosecution on the basis that the shelf life of the substance had expired in June 1989 and the summoning order was passed for the first time on 2111989 and thus, the petitioner was deprived of his right to get the sample reanalysed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory. Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act runs as under :

24(4) Report of Insecticide Analyst. (1)(2) and (3) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticide 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, or 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 sub(6) of section 22 to be. sent for test or analysis to the 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) "

This subsection, thus, gives an accusedperson a right to got the second sample of the substance analysed from the Laboratory and its report has been given the status of conclusive evidence. Thus, it has to supersede the report of the public Analyst Before the summoning orders were issued on 71189, the shelf life of the substance had expired and thus, the petitioner was deprived of his right to challenge the report of the Public Analyst and the only defence which could possibly be taken by him was lost to him. It was the responsibility of the State authorities to have expedited all the process for launching the prosecution. The prosecution, in these circumstances, cannot end in conviction of the petitioner and continuation of the prosecution will, thus, amount to abuse of process of the Court''. I hereby accept the criminal miscellanerus and quash the impugned complaint and the subsequent proceedings so far as these relate to the present petitioner.