Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baldev Krishan And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 25 November, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1992CRILJ2444
ORDER G.R. Majithia, J.
1. The petitioners, who are partners of M/s. Kisan Beej Bhandar, Gur Bazar, Malout, have moved this Court for quashing complaint under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, and Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, filed against them and the manufacturer M/s. Thakar Chemicals, New Delhi. The manufacturer has not been made a party to this petition. In the petition, it is stated that the dealer has violated Sections 3(k)(i), 18 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by selling misbranded insecticides, and the manufacturer violated Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, and 33 of the Act by manufacturing and selling misbranded insecticides.
2. The only ground on which the petitioners have moved this Court for quashing the FIR is that the sample was taken on 24th July, 1990 in Form XII, giving details of the name of the insecticide, batch number, expiry date etc. The date of manufacturing was May 1990, whereas the expiry date was April 1991, The complaint was filed in Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gidarbaha, on March 20, 1991, and the summonses were issued for 16th May, 1991, and on the date they appeared in the Court, they found that the expiry date of the insecticide was April 1991; resultantly, they were deprived of the valuable right to get the sample reanalysed from the Central Inseciticides Testing Laboratory under Section 24(4) of the Act. The provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act are mandatory, but in the instant case the said provisions have been rendered nugatory, since the petitioners were summoned for a date after the expiry date.
3. In the written statement filed by the Agricultural Development Officer, Malout, on behalf of the State, it is stated that the Insecticide Inspector took the sample in conformity with the mandatory provisions of the statute and the rules framed thereunder. He gave one container of sealed sample to the petitioners, from whom the sample was taken. On receipt of the result from the the Punjab Insecticide Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana, the petitioners were duly served with a show cause notice, along with copies of test reports by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot, vide letter No. 13279 dated 27th September, 1990. After receipt of the report, the petitioners could get the sample reanalysed under Sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act. The test report issued by the Punjab Insecticide Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana, was served upon the petitioners before the date of expiry of the sample, i.e. April 1991. He submits that the right of the petitioners to get the sample re-analysed was not violated.
4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to examine Sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 24 of the Act. The same read thus :--
24(3). "Any document purporting to be 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 notify in writing, the Insecticide Inspector of the Court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending, that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report."
"24(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 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 Central Insecticides Laboratory, the result thereof, and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein".
Sub-section (3) of Section 24 says that the report and the insecticide analysis is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, but the person from whom the sample was taken can within 28 days of the receipt of the copy of the report notify in writing, Insecticide Inspector or the Court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending, that he intends to adduce evidence to controvert the report. The petitioner received the result of the test report issued by the Punjab Insecticide Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana, along with show/cause notice vide letter No. 13279 dated 27th September, 1990 from the Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot. The receipt of this letter is not denied. The said letter issued by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot, on 27th September, 1990, could have been received by the petitioners the day following, or latest by 30th September, 1990. They did not notify to the Insecticide Inspector within 28 days of the receipt of the report that they wanted to controvert the report by adducing evidence, and the Only method of controverting the report is to send the sample retained by the petitioner to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. They having failed to avail the right under Sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act, cannot be allowed to urge that their valuable right was defeated. Sub-section (4) of Section 24 says that where a person has notified his intention under Sub-section (3) of adducing evidence to controvert the report of the Insecticide Analyst, the Court seized of the complaint may of its own motion or at the request of either of the parties, send the sample of the insecticide for analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act will only come into operation where the person from whom the sample has been taken, expresses his intention by sending a notice to the Insecticide Inspector, to lead evidence to controvert the report. If the notice in writing is not given, as envisaged under Sub-section (3) of Section 24, the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 24 will not come into play. Sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 24 have to be harmoniously read, and the provisions of either of the two sub-sections cannot be read in isolation of the other and on harmonious construction, the irresistible conclusion is that the person from whom the sample was taken on receipt of the test report, must intimate the Insecticide Inspector of his intention to lead evidence to controvert the report. If the notice in writing has been served on the Insecticide Inspector, the court may on the request of either of the parties send the sample for testing or re-analysis. The petitioners did not exercise the option under Sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act. At this stage it cannot be urged that their valuable right under Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act was infringed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited some authorities to contend that Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act gives a very valuable right to the petitioners, from whom the sample was taken. Those authorities have no applicability to the facts of the instant case, since in those authorities the dispute did not arise, rather it was not disputed that the person from whom the sample was taken, exercised his option under Sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act.
6. The manufacturer has not challenged the complaint, and has not joined the petition; presumably it wants the matter to be tried.
7. For the reasons stated above, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The trial Magistrate is directed to proceed expeditiously with the trial of the complaint.