Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 479 (RAJ)

Bayer India Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan

1997-04-07

P.C.JAIN

body1997
Honble JAIN, J.–The petitioners have filed this petition purporting to be u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the criminal case no. 372/93 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Anupgarh filed by respondent no. 1 for offences u/S. 29 read with Sec. 3(k)(i) and Sec. 17(A) of the Insectiside Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). (2) Petitioner no. 1 is a Public Limited Company, registered under the Companies Act and having its registered office at ``Express Tower, Nariman Point, Bombay. The Company is a manufacturer, amongst other things, of pesticides, including Pesticide known as folidol Dust (Methyl Parathoh 2%). (3) The Company has got valid and legal registration and Licence under the Act for the manufacture of Pesticides and sell its products throughout India. The Company has various branches and sales depots all over India. Petitioner No. 2 is the Chairman of the Company while petitioner no. 3 is Managing Director and Petitioner No. 4 is the Branch Executive of Delhi Office of the petitioner company. Petitioner no. 4 is in-charge and responsible for the sale of the products of the Com- pany in Northern region. Petitioners 2 and 3 are not in-charge and responsible for the day-to-day business of the Company. On 16th December, 1991, a sample of the product ``Methyl Parathoh 2% (Folidol Dust) from Batch No. A-11475, manufactured in October 1991, was taken from the premises of respondent no. 2 by the Insecticide Inspector, for the purpose of test and analysis u/S. 22 of the said Act. The said batch had expiry period as March, 1993. One of the samples of the said product was sent to the Insecticide, Analyst, Regional Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh (Union Territory). The Insecticide Analyst reported vide his report dated Jan. 7, 1992 that the product contained 1.83% of active ingredient instead of 2% and, therefore, the sample did not conform to the relevant ISI specifications. It appears that the said analysis was done at the Insecticides Laboratory at Chandigarh on or about Jan. 7, 1992. On the basis of the said report of the Analyst dated March 8, 1993, the Insecticide, Inspector filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Anupgarh. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the petitioners and respondents which was made returnable on June 19, 1993. 7, 1992. On the basis of the said report of the Analyst dated March 8, 1993, the Insecticide, Inspector filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Anupgarh. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the petitioners and respondents which was made returnable on June 19, 1993. The petitioners were served with the summons in or about September, 1994 and were directed to remain present in the Trial Court on 20th October, 1994. From the record, it appears that the sanction to file the complaint was given by the Joint Director of Agriculture (Plant Protection), Jaipur on 5th June, 1992 and the Corrigendum in respect of the same was issued on 18th June, 1993. (4) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned P.P. (5) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the analysis was done at the Insecticide Laboratory at Chandigarh on or about the 7th June, 1992. On the basis of the report of the Analyst, Inspector, Insecticide filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Anupgarh on 18th March, 1993. The Magistrate, took cognizance and issued process against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 and made the same returnable on 19th June, 1993. The petitioners were served with the summons in or about the month of September, 1994 and were directed to present themselves in the Trial Court on 29th Oct., 1994. The petitioners have annexed copy `B of the summons. Learned counsel has pointed out that sanction to file the complaint was accorded by the Joint Director of Agriculture (Plant Protection), Jaipur on 5th June, 1992 and the Corrigendum in respect of the same was issued on 18th June, 1993. Thus, on account of inordinate delay in filing of the complaint and subsequent delay in service of summons on the petitioners, the product expired and thereby the petitioners were deprived of a very valuable statu- tory right guaranteed by sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 24 of the Act to get the sample re-analysed by the Central Insecticide Laboratory. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to the various provisions contained in Sec. 24 of the Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of this Court in M/s. Pesticides India and Ors. vs. State of Raj. (1), Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to the various provisions contained in Sec. 24 of the Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of this Court in M/s. Pesticides India and Ors. vs. State of Raj. (1), Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (2) and State of Punjab vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. (3). (6) Learned Counsel for the non-petitioners has submitted that it was the duty of the petitioners to have moved the court praying for re-analysis of the sample and if it was reported on re-analysis of the sample that the same was useless, the petitioners could have claimed protection of sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 24 of the Act. (7) I have considered the arguments. I am not repeating the facts and the relevant duties mentioned here to before because there is no dispute about the same. At the risk of repetition, I may state that the Inspector, Insecticide took sam- ple of the petitioners product known as ``Methyl Parathoh 2% (Folidol Dust) from Batch No. A-11475. The above Batch of product was produced in October, 1991 and it was to expire in the month of March, 1993. The complaint was filed on 18/3/1993 and the present petitioners were served with the summons sometime in the month of September, 1994 and they were directed to present themselves in the Trial Court on 20/10/1994. It was thus amply-clear that by the time, the accused were ordered to be present in the court, the expiry period of the sample had gone and it was useless and meaningless to have sent the second sample for re-analysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory. The petitioners were, therefore, deprived of the right to have the second sample tested by the Central Insecticide Laboratory. This was violative of principle of natural justice as also the valuable right conferred by sub- sec. (4) of Sec. 24 of the Act. I may refer to two decisions of this Court. may refer to two decisions of this Court. In Hindustan Ciba Geigys case, the In Hindustan Ciba Geigys case (supra) the criminal complaint against the petitioner was filed after the expiry of the life of the insecticide. It was held that accused was deprived of a very valuable right of re-analysis of the sample in Central Insecticide Laboratory. may refer to two decisions of this Court. In Hindustan Ciba Geigys case, the In Hindustan Ciba Geigys case (supra) the criminal complaint against the petitioner was filed after the expiry of the life of the insecticide. It was held that accused was deprived of a very valuable right of re-analysis of the sample in Central Insecticide Laboratory. It was further held that it amounted to abuse of process of Court. The same view was taken by me in Ms. Pesticides India and ors. case (supra). It was observed in the above case that second sample could only be reanalysed before the expiry of the life of the insecticide. For protecting the right conferred by sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 24 of the Act, it was the bounden duty of the complainant to see that the chemical analysis is done promptly and the same promptness must be displayed in filing the complaint so that in case of grievance, the accused can fall back on the protectivie provision of sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 24 of the Act and get the second sample sent for reanalysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory. If delay is caused and the life of the insecticide from which the sample was taken expired before the right under sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 24 of the Act accrued to the complainant, the accused cannot get the same reanalysed. The whole exercise may be meaningless and in such a situation, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the proceeding u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. (8) In this connection, I may refer to the authoritative pronouncement made in State of Punjab vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. (supra). In this case, the provisions contained in Sections 21, 22 and 24 of the Act were analysed and it was held that if the accused, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is found to have been deprived of his right conferred by sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 24 of the Act on account of latches and delay in filing the complaint or effecting service on the accused, the right of the accused to sent the second sample for analysis is frustrated and the court, in the exercise powers conferred by Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is competant to quash such proceedings. (4) of Sec. 24 of the Act on account of latches and delay in filing the complaint or effecting service on the accused, the right of the accused to sent the second sample for analysis is frustrated and the court, in the exercise powers conferred by Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is competant to quash such proceedings. (9) For the above reasons, I allow the petition and quash the complaint as also the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court taking cognizance against the petitioners and the N.P. Concerned for the above offence.