Sant Lal and another vs State of Haryana

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

Petitioner Firm (M/s. Thakur Chemical) is the manufacturer of Insecticides. On 27th June, 1992 Yaspal Singh Rajput, SubDivisional Agriculture Officer/Insecticides Inspector, Jagadhari had drawn a sample of Insecticides named Monocratop has from the stock of M/s. Kishan Traders, Main Bazar, Chhachhrauli. The manufacturing date of the substance was March, 1992 and expiry date was February, 1993. The samples of substance were divided into three portions which were sealed. One portion was given to the person from whom the sample was taken and the Inspector of Insecticides retained the others. One such sample was sent to the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal. Quality Control Laboratory analysed the substance and found variation to the tune of 7.34%. It was reported to be misbranded. The report was given to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Yamunanagar.

The Deputy Director Agriculture informed the petitioner regarding misbranded sample alongwith a copy of report. The petitioner wrote a registered letter to the Deputy Director Agriculture Jagadhari. It was pointed out that petitioner was not satisfied with the test report. The request was made that the counter sample be sent to the Central Laboratory. This request was to be sent within 28 days on the receipt of the copy of the report of Analyst of Karnal.

It is alleged that the sample was not sent to the Central Laboratory for retesting on the expenses of the petitioner. Instead a complaint was made under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with rule 7 for violation of Section 3(k)(1) of Section 18 of the said Act. The complaint was presented on 16th April, 1993. Notice was issued to the petitioner from 20th January, 1994. The shelf life of the substance expired in February, 1993. The petitioner claims that the complaint and the subsequent proceedings be quashed because the valuable right was lost to the petitioner by not getting the 2nd sample analysed.

Notice of the complaint was issued to respondents. It has filed the reply.

The question in controversy concerning the facts which are not disputed can well be relisted. The sample was taken on 27th June, 1992. The Quality Control Laboratory''s Senior Analyst opined that it was misbranded. Form IX of the same is a part of report which is reproduced below for the sake of facility

"REPORT OF SENIOR ANALYST

Name of Insecticides: DDA Yamuna Nagar.

Inspector from whom received.

Serial No. & date of Insecticides Inspector''s memorandum. Sr. No. I letter No. 3566 dated 30.6.92.

Batch No. 142

Manufacturing date March, 1992.

Expiry date February, 1993

Date of sampling 27.6.92.

No. of sample One

Date of receipt 30.6.92

Name of Insecticides purporting to be contained in the sample Monocrotophs 36% SL

Condition of the seals of the package Intact

Result of test of analyst with Tech. Contt. 28.66% SampleSoluble in water % of acidity = 1.40

Protocols of test applied Protocols of test applies as per IS8074 misbranded."

Result

The report was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 10th August, 1992 and reply was sent (vide Annexure P2) on 19th August, 1992, the petitioner did not accept the report and requested that the counter sample be sent to the Central Laboratory. This fact has to be appreciated alongwith the provisions of Sections 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 which are reproduced as under :

"(1) The Insecticides Analyst whom a sample of an insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis under subsection (6) of Section 22, shall, within a period of sixty days, deliver to the Insecticide Inspector submitting it a signed report in duplicate in the prescribed form.

(2) The Insecticide Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and shall retain the other copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the sample.

(3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by an Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein, and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken within twenty eight days of the receipt of the receipt of a copy of the report notified in writing the Insecticide Inspector or the Court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in contravention of the report.

(4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory where a person has under subsection (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controverts of the Insecticide Analyst''s report, the Court may, of 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 subsection (6) of section 22 to be sent for test or analysis to the said 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) The cost of test or analysis made by the Central Insecticides Laboratory under subsection (4) shall be paid by the complainant or the accused, as the court shall direct."

It is obvious from the relevant provisions that the petitioner had a right to get the sample reanalysed since the petitioner was informed that the sample was found misbranded. He conveyed in writing that he need to adduce the evidence by getting the sample reanalysed by the Central Laboratory. The respondent did not send any reply nor made any efforts to get the sample re analysed. Subsection (3) of Section 24 gives a right to such a person that on receipt of copy of the report he can inform the Insecticide Inspector or Court that he intends to adduce evidence in contravention of the report. In addition to that the complaint was filed, after expiry of the shelflife of the sample which in the present case was February, 1993. This in action of the respondent debarred the petitioner from approaching to the Court for reanalysing the sample. No proceeding was pending against them at the time when the sample was in a fit condition for retesting. Opportunity given to the petitioner to get the sample reanalysed was a valuable right, which was denied to the petitioner due to the negligence of the respondent.

Similar question arose in the case of M/s. Hindustan Pulverising Mills v. State of Haryana, 1992(2) RCR 313 and the complaint as such was quashed. The same view was taken in the case of National Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 1992(1) RCR 157. In view of the precedents quoted above and under the facts of the present case, there is no hesitation from concluding that the valuable right was lost to the petitioner. Therefore, the complaint requires to be quashed.

Consequently I accept this petition and complaint alongwith subsequent proceedings thereto is quashed.