Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1040 (PNJ)

M/s Rahul Organic Ltd. v. State Of Punjab

2001-09-21

V.M.JAIN

body2001
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioners seeking the quashment of the criminal complaint under Section 3K (1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon. 2. In the petition, it was alleged that the sample was taken on 19.6.1997 and as per the report of the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana, the sample was not found according to ISI specifications. It was alleged that a copy of the report of the Analyst was sent to the petitioners on 21.7.1997 and on 3.8.1997, the petitioners sent detailed reply requesting the Insecticide Inspector to send the sample for re-analysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory at the expenses of the petitioners. It was alleged that thereupon the petitioners were asked to send the necessary expenses to the Chief Agricultural Officer, Sangrur, whereupon, the petitioners sent bank draft dated 4.9.1997 towards expenses for getting the sample retested and this fact was acknowledged by the Chief Agricultural Officer on 16.9.1997. It was alleged that surprisingly the sample was never sent for re-analysed and the present complaint was filed on 14.10.1998. It was alleged that as per the report of the Insecticide Analyst, the manufacturing date of the insecticide was May, 1996 and its expiry date was October, 1997. It was alleged that the complaint was filed on 14.10.1998, i.e. after the expiry of the shelf-life of the insecticide. It was alleged that the petitioners were ordered to be summoned for the first time for 14.12.1998 and by that time, the shelf-life of the insecticide had expired. It was alleged that the valuable right of the petitioner for getting the samples re-analysis from Central Insecticides Laboratory, had been denied to the petitioners, for no fault of theirs. Inter alia it was alleged that the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon were liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 3. In the written reply filed by Shri Surjit Bawa, Insecticide Inspector, Barnala, it was admitted that the sample was taken on 19.6.1997 and that the Analyst report was sent to the petitioners. It was also admitted that the petitioners had replied to the show cause notice and had requested for re- analysis of the sample whereupon, the petitioners were asked to send the required testing fee and other material required for sending the sample for re-analysis. It was also admitted that the petitioners had replied to the show cause notice and had requested for re- analysis of the sample whereupon, the petitioners were asked to send the required testing fee and other material required for sending the sample for re-analysis. It was admitted that the petitioners sent bank draft for testing charges only. It was alleged that the other material required for packing the sample was not supplied and for this reason, the sample could not be sent for re-analysis. It was admitted that the manufacturing date was May, 1996 and the expiry date was October, 1997 and the complaint was filed on 14.10.1998. It was alleged that the sample was not sent for re-analysis due to inaction on the part of the petitioners, as they had not supplied the required material for sending the sample for re-analysis. It was alleged that there was no fault on the part of the department. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the law laid down in the case reported as "State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd." 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 540 (SC) and "State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd." 1998 (4) RCR 578 (SC) and has submitted that the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon were liable to the quashed, as the sample had not been sent for re-analysis before the expiry of the shelf-life of the insecticide and that the complaint was filed after one year of the expiry of the shelf-life and thereafter, there was no occasion for the petitioners to ask for the re-analysis of the sample. 5. It is not disputed before me that on receipt of the copy of the report of the Insecticide Analyst, the petitioners had applied to the Insecticide Inspector for sending the sample for re-analysis and had also sent the bank draft towards the charges for the same. However, the only ground taken by the Insecticide Inspector for not sending the sample for re-analysis is that the petitioners had failed to supply the packing material. The learned State counsel could not point out any provision under which the petitioners were required to send the packing material along with the expenses for getting the sample for re-analysed. However, the only ground taken by the Insecticide Inspector for not sending the sample for re-analysis is that the petitioners had failed to supply the packing material. The learned State counsel could not point out any provision under which the petitioners were required to send the packing material along with the expenses for getting the sample for re-analysed. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the Insecticide Inspector was not justified in not sending the sample for re- analysis merely on the ground that the packing material had not been supplied by the petitioners even though the petitioners had requested for re-analysis of the sample and had also paid the necessary fee for the same. Furthermore, as referred to above, the expiry date was October, 1997 whereas the complaint was filed on 14.10.1998 i.e. one year after the expiry date of the shelf life of insecticide. Under these circumstances, the petitioners had no occasion to request the Court for sending the sample for re-analysis, when the petitioners appeared in the Court on 14.12.1998, on being summoned by the Court, after the filing of the criminal complaint. 6. In 1999(4) RCR 540 (supra), it has been held by the Honble Supreme Court that in order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested from Central Insecticides Laboratory, it is incumbent on the prosecution to file the complaint expeditiously so that the right of the accused is not lost. In the reported case, by the time, the accused were asked to appear before the Court, expiry date of the insecticide was already over and sending of sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory at that late stage was of no consequence. The Honble Supreme Court placed reliance on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. (supra), which is also reported as JT 1996 (10) SC 480. In the reported case of Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court up held the orders passed by the High Court quashing the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon. Similarly, the Honble Supreme Court in National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. case (supra), had upheld the order of the High Court in quashing the criminal complaint and all the subsequent proceedings taken thereon. 7. Similarly, the Honble Supreme Court in National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. case (supra), had upheld the order of the High Court in quashing the criminal complaint and all the subsequent proceedings taken thereon. 7. In view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in above mentioned authorities and on the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, the continuation of the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon, would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon, qua the petitioners are hereby quashed.