Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1905 (RAJ)

Amit Pesticides v. State of Rajasthan

2013-10-31

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the ordez dated 2.6.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srikaranpur in Cr. Case No. 44/2002 whereby, the learned Magistrate directed framing of the charges against the petitioners for the offence under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and for quashing of the proceedings of the complaint. 2. Learned counsel tor the petitioners contended that the petitioners are being prosecuted in this case for allegedly dealing in insecticide Monocrotophos, which was substandard. Learned counsel submitted that the complaynt was filed on the basis of the analysis report prepared by the Government Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Bikaner dated 3-10-2001 as per which, it was concluded that the insecticide sample did not conform to the prescribed standards. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners protested against the analysis report of the State Insecticides Testing Laboratory and requested that the second sample be forwarded to the Central Laboratory for analysis. Accordingly, the second sample of the insecticide was forwarded to the Central Insecticide Laboratory under Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act for analysis. The Central Insecticides Laboratory analysed the second sample and forwarded the analysis report dated 21.1.2002 as per which, it was concluded that the sample conformed to the Indian Standards specifications in the test conducted. 3. Learned counsel submitted that once the Central Laboratory has concluded that the sample conforms to the Indian Standards then, the petitioners prosecution would be impermissible in view of Section 24(4) of the Act, which prescribes that the report of the Central Insecticides Laboratory would be(sonclusive. He thus, prayed that the misc. petition deserves to be accepted and the order impugned directing framing of charges against the peti|ioners should be quashed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for tie petitioners. 5. The Section 24(3) and 24(4) of the Act are the relevant provision of law, which apply to the facts. 6. Section 24(3) postulates that the report signed by the insecticides analyst would be evidence of the facts stated therein unless the person from whom the sample was taken notified the Insecticide Inspector or the Court before which any proceedinws are pending and he intends to adduce evidence in contravention of the report. 7. 6. Section 24(3) postulates that the report signed by the insecticides analyst would be evidence of the facts stated therein unless the person from whom the sample was taken notified the Insecticide Inspector or the Court before which any proceedinws are pending and he intends to adduce evidence in contravention of the report. 7. Section 24(4) of the Act postulates that where the person notifies his intention of adducing evidence in contravention of the Insecticides Analysts 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 in{ucticide produced before the Maoistrate under suj-section (6) of Section 22 to be sent for test or analysis to the said laboratory. Sub-section (4) also provides that the report in writing sent by or under the authority of the Director, Central Insecticides Laboratory shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. 8. As has been noticed above, the Central Insecticides Laboratory has reported in this case vide analysis report dated 11.1.2002 that the second sample of insecticide collected in this case conformed to the IS specifications in the test conducted. The said report would be conclusive and supersedes the report of the State Laboratory. The learned ACJM Srikaranpur whilst directing framing of charge against the petitioners proceeded to dissect the report of the Central Insecticides Laboratory and held that despite the conclusion of the Central Insecticides Laboratory regarding the sample conforming to the standards, keeping in view the fact that the percentage of active ingredient of Monocrotophos in the insecticide was found to be 34.2 against the claimed percentage of 36, the insecticides would be deemed to be misbranded. 9. As per the specifications. Said down for Monocrotophos in the Indian Standards, a tolerance limit of + - 5 is permissible in declared value of the Monocrotophos insecticide between the values 9 to 50. The relevant portion of the Indian Standards is quoted hereinbelow:- "2.3.1. Monocrotophos Content - When determined by the method prescribed in Appendix A of IS : 8025-1983*; the observed monocrotophos content, percent by mass, of any of the samples shall not differ from the declared nominal value by more than tolerance limits indicated below: Nominal Value percent: Tolerance Up to 9 +10 -5 Above 9 and below 50 15 percent of nominal value 50 and above +5 -3 10. As the monocrotophos sold by the petitioners was of value 36, the tolerance limit applicable as per the Indian Standard specifications would be + -5. Therefore, even if the report of the State Laboratory is taken to be conclusive and correct, then also the sample cannot be held to be misbranded because the active content of Monocrotophos as per that report was 33.15. Furthermore, Section 24(4) lays down affirmatively that the report of the Central Insecticides Laboratory shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. The Central Insecticides Laboratory concluded in its report dated 11.1.2002 that the sample conformed to the standards. Thus, it was beyond the competence of the court to question the validity of the conclusions given in the report dated 11.1.2002 issued by the Pesticides Testing Laboratory of the Government of India at Kanpur. Thus the order dated 2.6.2011 whereby the learned trial Court directed framing of charges against the petitioners in this case is absolutely illegal and amounts to a gross abuse of the process of Court. 11. Accordingly, the misc. Petition deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. The order dated 2.6.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srikaranpur and all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioners in Cr. Case No. 44/2002 pending in the said court are hereby quashed. Stay petition is also disposed of.Petition Allowed. *******