Babulal Agarwal v. Associate Director — 1999 DIGILAW 293 (RAJ)

Judgment G.L. Gupta, J.-In all these Miscellaneous petitions under Section 482, CrPC the question to be considered is whether the proceedings pending against the petitioners, who are manufacturers of the insecticides, should be quashed on the ground that the self life of the insecticide had expired before filing of the complaint against them or before they could be served in the case. 2. Thecontention of Mr. Garg, learned Counsel for the petitioners, was that as the complaints were filed in the Court after the expiry of date of insecticides or the petitioners were served after the said date, the petitioners were deprived of their right of retesting of the insecticide by the Central Insecticides Laboratory under Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act. Relying on the cases of M/s. Bharat Insecticides Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan 1997 (1) WLC (Raj) 657, Bayer India Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan 1997 WLC (Raj) UC 630, M/s. Agro Chemicals v. State of Rajasthan (S. B. Cr. Miscellaneous Petition No. 577/93) decided on 19-1 1-98, 5. K. Ahuja v. State of Rajasthan 1991 RCC 254 and Agarwal Khad Bhandar v. State of Raj 1993 RCC 607. Mr. Garg submitted that the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners in the trial Court is abuse of the process of the Court. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, admitting that in some cases the complaints were filed after the date of the expiry of the insecticides, submitted that on the technicalities the trial of the petitioners should not be quashed. 4. Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 reads as follows:- 24. Report of Insecticide Analyst.- .(1) The Insecticide Analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis under Sub-section (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. (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 has within twenty-eight days 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 controversion of the report. .(4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory, where a person has under Sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion the Insecticide Analyst’s report, the Court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complaint or of the accused, cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the Magistrate under Sub-section (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) Thecost of a test or analysis made by the Central Insecticides Laboratory under Sub-section (4) shall be paid by the complainant or the accused, as the Court shall direct. 5. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 mandates the Insecticides Analyst to submit the report of analysis within a period of 60 days. Sub-section (2) provides that the Insecticide Inspector on receipt of the report of the Insecticide Analyst shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken. Sub-section (4) provides that the accused has a right of retesting of the sample of the insecticide by the Central Insecticide Laboratory. The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries (1996) 10 JT (SC) 480 has held that if the accused is deprived of his natural right of getting the sample analysed by the CIL, the proceedings in the Court of Magistrate would be fruitless. The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries (1996) 10 JT (SC) 480 has held that if the accused is deprived of his natural right of getting the sample analysed by the CIL, the proceedings in the Court of Magistrate would be fruitless. This Court in the cases cited by Mr. Garg has quashed the proceedings against the accused as they were deprived of their valuable right of getting the sample analysed by the Central Insecticides Laboratory. In the case of Bharat Insecticides Limited (1997 (1) WLC (Raj) 657) (Supra), this Court interpreted the word ‘accused’ appearing in Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act. It has been held that the word ‘accused’ is wide and comprehensive and would include all persons against whom cognizance is taken and process is issued by the concerned Magistrate. It has been further held that a copy of the report of the Insecticide Analyst should be delivered to or served upon all the accused against whom it is sought to be used. 6. It is obvious that a copy of the report of the Insecticide Analyst is required to be supplied not only to the dealer from whom the sample was taken but also to all the persons viz, distributor, manufacturer against whom cognizance is taken and process is issued by the Magistrate. The case of M/s. Bharat Insecticide Ltd. (Supra) goes a step further wherein it has been laid down that the second sample can be got analysed or tested in the Central Insecticides Laboratory without the intervention of the Court. 7. In the light of the legal position propounded in the cases referred to above, it is to be seen whether the petitioners were deprived of their right of retesting of the insecticide sample and the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. 8. (i) Miscellaneous Petition No. 548/98 The relevant facts are that the sample was collected by the Insecticide Inspector on 4-3-86. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was received on or after 7-5-86. The date of the expiry of the sample was 12-9-87. The complaint was filed on 24-8-87. It is stated in the complaint that the Insecticide Inspector had given notice about the report of the Insecticide Analyst to the petitioners who are manufacturers. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was received on or after 7-5-86. The date of the expiry of the sample was 12-9-87. The complaint was filed on 24-8-87. It is stated in the complaint that the Insecticide Inspector had given notice about the report of the Insecticide Analyst to the petitioners who are manufacturers. The petitioners in their reply sent within 28 days of the receipt of the notice had desired retesting of the sample. However, it is not averred in the complaint that the second sample was sent to the C.I.L. for testing. It is significant to point out that the petitioners have been served in the case after the date of the expiry of self life of the insecticide. The fact remains that the second sample of the insecticide was not tested by the C.I.L. though a specific request was made by the petitioners. As already stated, this is the view of this Court that the sample can be retested by the C.I.L. without the intervention of the Court. It was the duty of the Insecticide Inspector to have sent the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory when the petitioners had made request for retesting. The petitioners had no occasion to make a request to the Magistrate for sending the sample to the C.I.L. as by the time the service was effected on them the self life of sample of the insecticide had expired. Since the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right of retesting of insecticide by the C.I.L. the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. The continuance of proceedings against the petitioners will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. (ii) Miscellaneous Petition No. 555/98 The relevant facts are that the sample of the insecticide was taken on 18-7-89. The report of the Public Analyst was received on or after 12-9-89. The date of the expiry of insecticide was October, 1990. The complaint was filed by the Insecticide Inspector before the Magistrate on 23-1-92 i.e. after the expiry of the self life of the insecticide. It is obvious that the petitioners who are manufacturers had no occasion to get the sample tested by the C.I.L through the intervention of the Court. The facts indicate that the Insecticide Inspector had given notice to the petitioners on 25-10-89 about the report of the Insecticide Analyst. It is obvious that the petitioners who are manufacturers had no occasion to get the sample tested by the C.I.L through the intervention of the Court. The facts indicate that the Insecticide Inspector had given notice to the petitioners on 25-10-89 about the report of the Insecticide Analyst. In their reply dated 3-11 -89 the petitioners had desired for sending a copy of the report of the Insecticide Analyst which was done on 10-11-89. The petitioners thereafter made a request vide their letter dated 17-10-89 for retesting of the sample of insecticide. However, the Insecticide Inspector did not care to send the second sample to C.I.L. for retesting. As already stated, the Insecticide Inspector could get the second sample by the C.I.L. without the intervention of the Court. Since the second sample was not got tested by C.I.L. though a request was made by the petitioners, it has to be accepted that the petitioners were deprived of their right of testing of the sample by the C.I.L. The continuance of proceedings against the petitioners will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. (iii) Miscellaneous Petition No. 488/98 The facts indicate that the sample of the insecticide was taken by the Insecticide Inspector on 16-9-92. Report of the Insecticide Analyst was received on or after 17-11 -92. The expiry date of the insecticide was July, 1994. The complaint against the petitioners & Ors. was filed on 14-9-95. It is obvious that the complaint was filed after the expiry of the self life of the insecticide. The petitioners had thus no opportunity to get the sample tested by the C.I.L. The averments in the complaint reveal that a notice was sent to the petitioners on 12-3-93 about the report of the Insecticide Analyst. By their reply dated 20-3-93 the petitioners had requested for the retesting of the insecticide. However, it was not done. As already held, the Insecticide Inspector could get the second sample retested by the C.I.L. without the intervention of the Court. It was not done despite the request of the petitioners. As the petitioners were deprived of their valuable right of retesting of the sample by the C.I.L. the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. .(iv) Miscellaneous Petition No. 549/98 The facts on record indicate that the sample of insecticide was taken by the Inspector on 3 1-10-84. It was not done despite the request of the petitioners. As the petitioners were deprived of their valuable right of retesting of the sample by the C.I.L. the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. .(iv) Miscellaneous Petition No. 549/98 The facts on record indicate that the sample of insecticide was taken by the Inspector on 3 1-10-84. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was received on or after 17-1-85. The expiry date of the insecticide was October, 1986. The complaint was filed on 25-9-86 i.e. some days before the date of expiry of the insecticide. It is not averred in the complaint that the petitioners who are manufacturers had been given notice about the report of the Insecticide Analyst before filing the complaint. Thus, the petitioners had no knowl-edge of the report of the Insecticide Analyst. The petitioners could not be served in the case before October, 1986 i.e. before the expiry of the self life of the insecticide. It has therefore, to be held that the petitioners were deprived of their right of retesting by the C.I.L. The proceedings against the petitioners, therefore, are liable to be quashed. .(v) Miscellaneous Petition No. 547/98 The facts indicate that the sample of insecticide was taken by the Inspector on 6-9-1984. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was received on or after 23-10-1984. The date of the expiry of the insecticide was August, 1985. The complaint was filed in the Court on 24-4-1987. The petitioners have not yet been served in the case. There is no averment in the complaint that a notice was sent to the petitioners who are manufacturers, before the filing of the complaint, about the report of the Insecticide Analyst. It is thus obvious that the petitioners have been deprived of their right of retesting of the insecticide by the C.I.L. The proceedings against the petitioners therefore, are liable to be quashed. .(vi) Miscellaneous Petition No. 15/99 The facts indicate that the Insecticide Inspector had taken sample on 28-7-1989. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was received on or after 23-9-1989. The date of the expiry of insecticide was September, 1990. The complaint was filed in the Court of Magistrate on 17-2-1992 i.e. much after the period of expiry of the self-life of the insecticide. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was received on or after 23-9-1989. The date of the expiry of insecticide was September, 1990. The complaint was filed in the Court of Magistrate on 17-2-1992 i.e. much after the period of expiry of the self-life of the insecticide. However, the facts indicate that a notice was sent to the petitioners on 2-8-1990 informing about the report of the Insecticide Analyst. To the reply of that notice, the petitioners had requested vide their letter dated 3-8-1990 that the sample be got retested, but it was not done. As already stated, the Insecticide Inspector could get the sample tested by the C.I.L. without the intervention of the Court. Since the sample was not tested on the request of the petitioners who are manufacturers and the complaint has been filed much after the date of the expiry of the insecticide, the petitioners have obviously been deprived of their right of retesting. The proceedings against the petitioners, therefore, are liable to be quashed. (vii) Miscellaneous Petition No. 852/98 The facts indicate that the sample of insecticide was purchased by the Inspector or 12-3-1986. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was received on or after 12-6-1986. The complaint was filed on 13-3-1987 against the petitioners & Ors.. The date of the expiry of the self-life of the insecticide was September, 1987. However, by Sept., 1987 the petitioners were not served. It is not averred in the complaint that prior to the filing of the complaint the Insecticide Inspector had given a notice to the petitioners about the report of the Insecticide Analyst. Since the self -life of the insecticide has expired, the petitioners have been deprived of their right of retesting the sample by the C.I.L. The continuance of the trial against the petitioners is abuse of the process of the Court and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. (viii) Miscellaneous Petition No. 1098/98 The sample was taken by the Insecticide Inspector on 12-12-1984. The report of the Analyst was received on or after 6-2-1985. The date of the expiry of the insecticide was November, 1986. The complaint was filed on 4-10-1985 i.e. before the date of the expiry of the self -life of the insecticide. However, the petitioners could not be served before the date of the expiry of the insecticide. The report of the Analyst was received on or after 6-2-1985. The date of the expiry of the insecticide was November, 1986. The complaint was filed on 4-10-1985 i.e. before the date of the expiry of the self -life of the insecticide. However, the petitioners could not be served before the date of the expiry of the insecticide. It is not stated in the complaint that a notice or a copy of the report of the Insecticide Analyst was sent to the petitioners before the filing of the complaint. It is obvious that the petitioners were not aware of the report of the Insecticide Analyst. Because of the expiry of the self -life of the insecticide the testing of the sample by the C.I.L. is now not possible. Since the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right of retesting by the C.I.L. the proceedings are liable to be quashed. .(ix) Miscellaneous Petition No. 1099/98 The Insecticide Inspector had taken sample on 8-7-1989. The complaint was filed on 14-3-1991 against the petitioners & Ors.. The date of the expiry of the self -life of the insecticide was in May, 1990. It has been stated in the complaint that along with the notice a copy of the report of the Insecticide Analyst was sent to the petitioners. At this stage, there is no reason to disbelieve the averment made in the complaint. In the list of items at Item No. 7 it has been recorded that the petitioners had given reply on 28-12-1990. It has been averred by the petitioners in the petition that they were not supplied the copy of the report of the Public Analyst. It is not their contention that in their reply they had requested for the retesting of the sample by C.I.L. Keeping in view the facts stated in the complaint and the list of documents, it cannot be held at this stage that the petitioners were not supplied the copy of the report of the Insecticide Analyst before the date of the expiry of the insecticide. In view of these facts, it cannot be found that the petitioners were deprived of their right of retesting of the insecticide by the C.I.L. The petitioners are not entitled to succeed in this petition. .(x) Miscellaneous Petition No. 853/98 The sample was taken by the Insecticide Inspector on 2-12-1988. In view of these facts, it cannot be found that the petitioners were deprived of their right of retesting of the insecticide by the C.I.L. The petitioners are not entitled to succeed in this petition. .(x) Miscellaneous Petition No. 853/98 The sample was taken by the Insecticide Inspector on 2-12-1988. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was received on or after 7-2-1989. The complaint was filed on 27-9-1989. The date of the expiry of the self -life of the insecticide was in September, 1990. It is not clear on record that the petitioners were not served before September, 1990. The petitioners have not filed the copies of the order-sheets. It is, therefore, not possible to say at this stage that the petitioners were deprived of their right of retesting. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 548/98, 555/98, 488/98, 549/98, 547/98, 15/99, 852/98 and 1098/98 are allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in the Court of the Magistrate concerned are hereby quashed. The Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 1099/98 and 853/98 are dismissed.