Karnataka High Court
Sri Kiran Kumar S H vs Agricultural Officer And Insecticide ... on 21 April, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:16324
WP No. 34225 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 34225 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI KIRAN KUMAR S H
SRI MALATESH AGRO CENTRE
NO. 281/8 MAHAVEER ROAD
DAVANGERE 577 001
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
2. NAKASA CROP SCIENCE
REG NO U24232AP2011PTC073868
UNDER COMPANIES ACT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MARKETING DIRECTOR NAGESHWAR RAO,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O LATE RATHAIAH
FLAT NO-20 IDA RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR
Digitally signed by
PRASHANTI NAGAR KUKUTAPALLYA
R HEMALATHA HYDERABAD TELANAGANA 500 072.
Location: High ...PETITIONERS
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI. VAKKUND SONATAI GANATATRAO., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
AND INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR
TECHNICAL OFFICER NO 1,
REP BY VEERESH KALMANI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT AGRICULTURE DIRECTOR,
DAVANGERE 577 001.
2. LICENSING AUTHORITY AND AGRICULTURE OFFICER
OFFICE OF JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:16324
WP No. 34225 of 2024
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE INSECTICIDE
REGISTERING AUTHORITY TALUK DAVANGERE
DISTRICT DAVANGERE - 577 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 482 OF
CRIMINARL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMPLAINT FILED IN PCR NO. 774/2022 (C.C.NO. 7812/2022)
ANNX-G FILED BY R-1 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BEFORE I
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DAVANAGERE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners (accused Nos.1 and 2), who are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 13, 3(K), and Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, are before this Court seeking relief.
2. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that during the inspection of petitioner No.1's premises, it was discovered that the pesticide manufactured by petitioner No.2 was misbranded. A sample of the insecticide seized from petitioner No.1 was sent to the Analyst on 27.8.2019. The Analyst submitted a report on 19.9.2019. The petitioners contend that the Insecticide Inspector, by not furnishing the report of the insecticide analyst along with the notice, deprived them of their legitimate right to send the sample of the subject pesticide to the -3- NC: 2025:KHC:16324 WP No. 34225 of 2024 Central Insecticide Laboratory under Section 24(4) of the Pesticides Act, as the report of the insecticide analyst is not conclusive proof.
3. The issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in WP No.19039/2021 and connected petitions (DD 15.9.2023), wherein it is observed as follows:
"9. Section 21 of the Act, deals with the powers of Insecticide Inspector to enter and search any premises in which he has reason to believe that an offence under the Act or Rules is committed or allowed to be committed.
10. Section 22 of the Act, deals with the procedure to be followed by the insecticide Inspector. Sub-section 6 of the Act, states that portion of the sample collected shall be sent to insecticide analyst for analysis and one portion shall be produced before the Court before which proceedings if any are instituted in respect of the subject insecticide.
11. Section 24(1) of the Act, states that the insecticide analyst shall within a period of 30 days submit his report to the insecticide Inspector.
12. Sub-section 2 of Section 24 of the Act states that on receipt of the report, he shall send the report to the person from whom the sample was collected.
13. Section 24(3) of the Act, states that the report signed by the insecticide analyst shall be evidence of facts and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken within the 28 days of the receipt of the copy of the report in writing the insecticide inspector or the Court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that -4- NC: 2025:KHC:16324 WP No. 34225 of 2024 he intends to adduce his evidence in contravention of the report.
14. Section 24(4) of the Act, states that unless the sample has been tested and analyzed in the Central Insecticide Laboratory, the report submitted under section 24(1) shall not be a conclusive proof.
15. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARAYANA -vs- UNIQUE FARMAID PRIVATE LIMITED1 has held as follows:
"11. Sub-section (1) of Section 30 which appears to be relevant only prescribes in effect that ignorance would be of no defence but that does not mean that if there are contraventions of other mandatory provisions of the Act, the accused have no remedy. The procedure for testing the sample is prescribed and if it is contravened to the prejudice of the accused, he certainly has the right to seek dismissal of the complaint. There cannot be two opinions about that. Then in order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested from the 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 present case, by the time the respondents were asked to appear before the Court, the expiry date of the insecticide was already over and sending of the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory at that late stage would be of no consequence. This issue is no longer res integra. In State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. [(1996) 11 SCC 613 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 312 : JT (1996) 10 SC 480] this Court in somewhat similar circumstances said that the procedure laid down under Section 24 of the Act deprived the accused to have the sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and adduce evidence of the report so given in his defence. This Court stressed the need to lodge the complaint with utmost despatch so that the accused may opt to avail the statutory defence.1
(1999) 8 SCC 190 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:16324 WP No. 34225 of 2024 The Court held that the accused had been deprived of a valuable right statutorily available to him. On this view of the matter, the Court did not allow the criminal complaint to proceed against the accused. We have cases under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 involving the same question. In this connection reference be made to decisions of this Court in State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal [(1998) 5 SCC 343 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1315] under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram [AIR 1967 SC 970 : (1967) 2 SCR 116] , Chetumal v. State of M.P. [(1981) 3 SCC 72 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 632] and Calcutta Municipal Corpn. v. Pawan Kumar Saraf [(1999) 2 SCC 400 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 218] all under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954."
(Emphasis supplied)
4. In the present case, the petitioners were not provided with the report of the Insecticide Analyst along with the show-cause notices, in violation of their statutory rights. Furthermore, the private complaint was filed more than three years after the submission of the report by the Insecticide Analyst, by which time the shelf life of the subject insecticide had already expired. As a result, the petitioners were effectively deprived of their legal right to send the sample of the insecticide to the Central Insecticide Laboratory for verification, as provided under Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act.
5. This failure to furnish the report along with the show- cause notice, coupled with the filing of the complaint long -6- NC: 2025:KHC:16324 WP No. 34225 of 2024 after the expiry of the insecticide's shelf life, significantly undermines the petitioners' ability to challenge the findings of the Insecticide Analyst. The deprivation of such a fundamental right, which is crucial for the protection of the petitioners' interests and for ensuring a fair trial, renders the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners an abuse of the process of law.
6. In light of the foregoing, it is manifest that the petitioners have been unjustly deprived of valuable statutory rights, and thus, continuing with the criminal proceedings under these circumstances would amount to an abuse of judicial process, leading to unnecessary harassment and injustice.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.7812/2022 pending on the file of the learned I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Davangere, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 4 Sl No.: 9