Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2684 (PNJ)

Ravi Organics Ltd. v. State Of Punjab

2006-07-11

T.P.S.MANN

body2006
Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. The main thrust of the petitioner while seeking quashing of the complaint and subsequent proceedings under Sections 3(k)(1), 17, 18 and 33 read with Section 29 of the Insecticides Act and Rule 27(5) of Insecticides Rules is that the complaint was filed after the date of expiry of the insecticide and thus a valuable right to the petitioner under Sections 24(3) and 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) was lost. 2. On 26.7.1997, the Insecticides Inspector visited the shop of M/s. Friends Agro Chemicals and took sample of Phorat 10% in one kilogram packing, which bore the date of manufacturing as 14.4.1997 with expiry date of 13.4.1998. The sample was subjected to examination by Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Amritsar, who gave his report that the sample was mis- branded as it contained only 8.84% of active ingredients of Phorat against 10% as labelled on the packing. A copy of the report was communicated by the authorities to Shri Deepak Sharma, partner of M/s. Friends Agro Chemicals along with a show cause notice. In pursuance thereto, Shri Deepak Sharma submitted a written reply on 10.9.1997 and on the same day at the time of personal hearing, he produced a photocopy of invoice-cum-delivery challan by virtue of which he claimed to have purchased the insecticides in question in one kilogram packing from M/s. Somanil Chemicals. Accordingly, a copy of the analysts report was also communicated to M/s. Somanil Chemicals along with show cause notice. In response to said show cause notice, a written reply was submitted by M/s. Somanil Chemicals and Chief Agriculture Officer, Amritsar was requested for re-analysis of the reference sample. After completing the formalities, the reference sample was sent for re-analysis to Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Faridabad. After carrying out analysis, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemical) of Central Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Faridabad furnished a report, as per which active ingredients were only 8.1% as against 10% mentioned on the label of the packing from which the sample was drawn. The re-analysis report was accordingly conveyed to M/s. Friends Agro Chemicals. Thereafter on 2.7.2000, a complaint (Annexure P-1) was filed against M/s. Friends Agro Chemicals and others. The re-analysis report was accordingly conveyed to M/s. Friends Agro Chemicals. Thereafter on 2.7.2000, a complaint (Annexure P-1) was filed against M/s. Friends Agro Chemicals and others. The insecticide in question had been shown to be manufactured by the petitioner i.e. M/s. Ravi Organics Limited and accordingly, it was also made one of the accused, i.e. accused No. 4 in the aforementioned complaint. 3. After perusing the complaint, and other documents, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar found a prima facie case against accused including the present petitioner for the offences mentioned in the complaint and accordingly summoned them to face trial as accused. The quashing of the complaint and the subsequent proceedings taken thereunder are sought by the petitioner by filing the present petition. 4. It has been submitted that the complaint was filed on 2.7.2000 i.e. much after the expiry date of the insecticide and thus a valuable right which could accrue to the petitioner under Sections 24(3) and 24(4) of the Act was lost. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon M/s. Raj Hans Chemicals v. State of Punjab, 1994(2) RCR(Crl.) 139; M/s. Hindustan Pulverising Mills v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) RCR(Crl.) 116; M/s. Trilo Agro Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Punjab, 1997(3) RCR(Crl.) 632 and State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd., 1999(4) RCR(Crl.) 540 (SC). 5. There is no dispute with the proposition of law enunciated in the aforementioned judgments that a valuable right vested in the accused to get the sample re-tested and further that the right to get the sample re-tested is not only of the person from whom the sample was taken but also of the manufacturer, yet it is to be seen whether the authorities denied the said right to the accused. 6. It is clearly stated in the complainant (Annexure P-1) that M/s. Somanil Chemicals, from whom the insecticide in one kilogram packing was purchased by M/s. Friends Agro Chemicals, had requested the Chief Agriculture Officer, Amritsar for re-analysis of the reference sample from Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Faridabad. On the said request, Chief Agriculture Officer wrote a letter to M/s. Somanil Chemicals to bring a draft of Rs. 220/- and also packing material. On receiving the draft of Rs. On the said request, Chief Agriculture Officer wrote a letter to M/s. Somanil Chemicals to bring a draft of Rs. 220/- and also packing material. On receiving the draft of Rs. 220/- and packing material, the reference sample, which was in the custody of Shri Gurdeep Singh, Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Amritsar was sent to Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Faridabad by registered parcel by Chief Agriculture Officer along with forwarding letter dated 1.1.1998. After carrying out analysis, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemical) of Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad furnished a report, which was received in the office of Insecticide Inspector, Amritsar on 26.2.1998, whereby the sample was declared to be misbranded as it contained only 8.1% of active ingredients as against 10% as mentioned on the label attached to the packing from which sample was drawn. 7. Once a sample has already been re-analysed, the law does not permit for any further analysis. It is immaterial whether the re-analysis was done at the instance of the dealer or at the instance of distributor or even at the instance of the manufacturer. Right to get re-analysis would come to an end once the re-analysis has been carried out. In the present case, the re- analysis had been carried out as per the request made by the distributor i.e. M/s. Somanil Chemicals. The right as contained under Sections 24(3) and 24(4) of the Act to get the re-analysis of the sample came to an end once the same is done. After the re-analysis of the sample was done at the instance of M/s. Somanil Chemicals from whom the insecticides in question was purchased by the dealer, the manufacturer i.e. the present petitioner could not claim any further right to go in for analysis once again. 8. Accordingly, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the filing of the complaint after the date of expiry of the insecticide is without any legal basis and deserves to be rejected. 9. 8. Accordingly, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the filing of the complaint after the date of expiry of the insecticide is without any legal basis and deserves to be rejected. 9. It has also been submitted that right in the beginning when the sample was drawn by the Insecticide Inspector on 26.7.1997 and intimation in the shape of Form XX (Annexure P-2) as required under Rule 33 was given to M/s. Friends Agro Chemicals, it was clearly mentioned that the insecticide in question was manufactured by M/s. Ravi Organic Limited i.e. the present petitioner, and in that situation, the authorities were required to issue notice to the petitioner itself straightaway after receiving report of mis-branding from Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amritsar. 10. Though, it is a fact that in column No. 10, it was clearly mentioned that the insecticide in question was manufactured by the petitioner yet at the point of time when report was received from Insecticide Test Laboratory, notice was required to be issued only to M/s. Friends Agro Chemicals as the sample was drawn from the said firm. Notice is required to be given to the distributor only if the dealer appears before the authorities and claims that the sample was drawn from an un-opened packing. Similarly, after such a notice is issued to the distributor of having distributed insecticide to the dealer in a proper packing, which remained un-opened till the time of packing of the sample, such a distributor can also inform the authorities that he received insecticide in a packed manner from the manufacturer and he did not interfere in its contents. Only at that stage, the authorities would be required to proceed against the manufacturer and not earlier. Same thing happened here in the present case. To begin with, after the receipt of the report from the Insecticide Test Laboratory, show cause notice was issued to M/s. Friends Agro Chemicals i.e. dealer. After receiving the reply to the same, the Insecticide Inspector issued notice to the distributor and finally after receiving reply from the distributor the complaint was filed against the dealer, distributor and the manufacturer i.e. the petitioner. 11. In view of the above, no case is made out for quashing the complaint. The petition is accordingly dismissed.