Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1343 (MAD)

Anu Products Limited & Others v. M. Veeramani

2003-08-26

M.CHOCKALINGAM

body2003
Judgment :- The petitioners before this Court have sought for quashing of the proceedings in S.T.C.No.1371 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Trichy. 2. Admittedly, the first petitioner is the manufacturer of insecticides and sold the products in the area through dealers and distributors. The sample of the product namely "Phorate 10% G" (brand name Anumet) was drawn by the concerned Insecticides Inspector on 14.11.1998 from the shop of Nilaa Traders, Trichy. It is not disputed that the said the product was manufactured in September, 1998, and the expiry date was also August, 1999. But, the sample was sent to the pesticide testing laboratory at Trichy on 16.11.1998 for testing, and the same was analysed on 27.11.1998. It is true that the sample was declared misbranded by the Laboratory. Along with a copy of the Analyst's report, a letter was served on the first petitioner on 1.12.1998, and the company did not agree with the findings of the analyst's report. The said letter was received by the complainant on 18.12.1998. The complaint was taken on file on 30.7.1999 by the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli. Pursuant to that, summons were issued on 27.8.99 for the appearance of the petitioners before the Court on 17.9.1999. Accordingly, the first petitioner appeared before the Court and made a request for retesting of the same. The sample was sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory at Faridabad for retesting. But, the sample could not be retested since the sample had expired in August 1999 itself. 3. Under the stated circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioners were deprived of their rights available under Sec.24(4) of the Insecticides Act. Sec.24(4) of the Insecticides Act reads: "24. Report of Insecticide Analyst:- .... 4. But, the sample could not be retested since the sample had expired in August 1999 itself. 3. Under the stated circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioners were deprived of their rights available under Sec.24(4) of the Insecticides Act. Sec.24(4) of the Insecticides Act reads: "24. Report of Insecticide Analyst:- .... 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 contravention 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 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." In view of the expiry of time as to the said sample and the fact that though it was found originally to be defective, but, subsequently it cannot be retested, a right what is available to the petitioners under Sec.24(4) of the Act, as stated above, could not be availed of. Hence, the Court has to necessarily agree with the petitioners' side. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court reported in 2000(2) FAC 119 (M/S. AGRO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS VS. R.MUHAMEDU NAZAR), wherein it has been held thus: "The material requirement of the Act is that the complaint should be filed and the accused should be served well in time before the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide in question so as to enable the accused persons to challenge the correctness of the report of the analyst by forwarding the counter part of the sample to the Central Laboratory. If this right of an accused under the Act is violated by inaction or omission or delay on the part of the department, the same is fatal to the prosecution." It can be well stated that the decision of this Court cited supra squarely applies to the present facts of the case. If this right of an accused under the Act is violated by inaction or omission or delay on the part of the department, the same is fatal to the prosecution." It can be well stated that the decision of this Court cited supra squarely applies to the present facts of the case. In view of the above reasons, the proceedings before the lower Court have got to be quashed. 5. In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings in S.T.C.No.1371 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Trichy. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P. is closed.