Surinder Pal Saini vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint dated 8.8.1991, a copy of which is annexure P1, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana under sections 3(K) (1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (for short the Act) read with rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 (For short the Rules) and for quashing of consequential proceedings arising therefrom or in relation thereto.

The petitioner was working with M/s. Montari Industries Limited, Ludhiana as Regional Sales Manager with its posting at Ludhiana. The said Company obtained a licence from the Chief Agriculture Officer/Licensing Authority, Ludhiana under the provisions of the Act read with Rules, 1971. It was averred that the petitioner was at no stage Incharge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company to the quality of the products. The petitioner left the said company since December 1993. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition briefly be mentioned as under :

On 17.8.1990 a sample of Dimethoate (Milgor) 30% of Batch No. 036, manufacturing date June 1990 and the expiry date being May 1991 manufactured by M/s. Kisan Chemicals, Chandigarh was taken by the Insecticide Inspector, Ludhiana Shri Mohinder Singh Sekhon. The sample was taken in original packing of one litre each and the same was duly sealed by the Company aforesaid. The prescribed from XII giving details of the samples has been filed as Annexure P3. Even one of the samples was sent to the Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana from where a test report dated 12.10.1990 was received showing, inter alia, that the sample was upto the required specifications as it contained 27.15% active ingredients against the required standard of 30%. Nothing adverse was found regarding the rest of the tests of conducted in respect of the said sample. Thereafter, the criminal complaint was filed after observing the necessary formalities, in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. A show cause notice No. 4833 dated 24.10.1990 was issued to M/s. Kisan Chemicals by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Ludhiana calling for the explanation of the said company. It is averred that no such notice was served by name with regard to the misbranding of the sample. The Company which manufactured the sample submitted a reply through the counsel to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Ludhiana asking that the referresample be got analysed from IDMA Laboratory which is a Government approved Laboratory. The sample was found according to is specification. M/s. Montari Industries Limited, Ludhiana expressed its intention to get the sample reanalysed as per provisions of Section 24 of the Act, a copy of which has been attached as Annexure P6. The petitioners received the summons of the Criminal complaint after five years when he had already left the company. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the criminal complaint and proceedings flowing from it on number of grounds, inter alia, that there are no allegations and averments made against the petitioner for alleged violations of the provisions of the Insecticides Act in the complaint. That the petitioner was never served with the copy of the report of the analyst or with the show cause notice either by the Insecticide Inspector or the Chief Agriculture Officer, Ludhiana. There was no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner was Incharge or responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company. It has further been alleged that the order of sanction for prosecution, copy Annexure P8, cannot be treated to have been validly issued against the petitioner as envisaged under Section (31)(1) of the Act. It has been further alleged that the shelf life of the sample has since been expired and the right of re analysis of the sample has been taken away by lapse of time. The statutory right of the petitioner contained in subsections 3 and 4 of Section 24 of the Act have been taken away on account of inordinate delay. A valuable right to controvert the correctness of the report of the Insecticides Analyst is vested with the petitioner and in a number of authorities it has been held that where there is delay in launching the complaint and the same renders it impossible for the accused to pursue his right for asking for a test of analysis of the sample by the referree laboratory, the prosecution stands vitiated and is liable to be quashed. The prejudice to the accused on this score is writ large and the infirmity is incurable and fatal. The expiry of the sample is May 1991 whereas the complaint was filed in August 1991. The sanction was obtained earlier in May 1991.

Notice of motion was issued to the respondent.

The respondent put in appearance and filed reply. It was inter alia, alleged that the petitioner was Regional Manager of M/s. Montari Industries Limited, Ludhiana and was posted at Ludhiana. The sample was taken in the presence of the petitioner and as such, he had contravened the provisions of the Act as per Sections 3(K)(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Act. Leaving of the company by the petitioner is of no consequence is so far as his liability for the offences is concerned. The complaint was launched after completing the formalities after obtaining necessary written sanction under Section 31(1) of the Act. The petitioner firm applied for the retesting of the sample before the Chief Agriculture officer, Ludhiana but did not apply before the Judicial Court. No right of the petitioner has been infringed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, I find that there is considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint deserves to be quashed on the short ground that the valuable right of the petitioner for having the sample reanalysed has been taken away by lapse of time in delayed filing of the complaint and in the meantime of shelf life of the sample expired.

In M/s. Jai Chemicals, Faridabad v. State of Punjab, 1995(3) RCR 220, a learned Single Judge of this Court after referring to the number of authorities cited before him held that when shelf life is expired, the petitioner lost a valuable right to get the second sample analysed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory. A valuable right was lost and prejudice caused to the petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings were liable to be quashed. The authorities noticed by the learned Single Judge were National Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana, Bhai Manjit Singh, Managing Director, Montari Industries Ltd. v. The State of Punjab, 1992(1) RCR 244 and U.B. Bukana, Assistant Marketing Manager, Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Co. Ltd., Amritsar and another v. State of Punjab, 1993(1) RCR 665.

In the instant case also the shelf life of the sample expired by the time criminal complaint was filed in the court. The valuable right of the petitioner was lost and he could not get the second sample analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory. Under these circumstances, the criminal complaint and subsequent proceedings flowing from it deserve to be quashed. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The criminal complaint, annexure P1 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana and consequential proceedings flowing therefrom are quashed.