Delhi District Court
P.P.O. vs . Ashok Dugar on 28 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJINDER KUMAR, MM03,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURT, DELHI
CC No. 129/98
P.P.O. Vs. ASHOK DUGAR
U/S: 29(1) (a) THE INSECTICIDES ACT, 1968
Sr. no. of the case : 129/98
Date of commission of offence : 04.11.1996
Date of institution of the case : 22.07.1998
Name of the complainant : Sh. Arvind Kumar
Name of accused and address : Ashok Dugar
S/o Late Bachhraj Dugar
R/o Semmni Valley, Tea
Estate, P.O. Elappars,
Distt. Idduki, Kerala.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 29(1) (a) The
Insecticides Act, 1968
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted.
Date of judgment : 28.01.2015.
J U D G M E N T
1. The accused has been summoned to face trial u/s 29(1) (a) The Insecticides Act, 1968.
2. The brief facts of the case as alleged by the complainant are that on 04.11.1996 at M/s Herbicides (I) Ltd., 1314, Prakash Aptt., 5 Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi the accused was found selling the CC No.129/98 Page 1 of 9 insecticides which was found to be misbranded u/s 3K I The Insecticides Act. Accordingly, accused Ashok Dugar committed an offence punishable U/s 29(1) (a) The Insecticides Act, 1968.
2. The present complaint was made in writing by the public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties, therefore, the presummoning complainant evidence was dispensed with and the accused was summoned for facing trial for the offence punishable u/s 29(1) (a) The Insecticides Act, 1968 vide order dated 22.07.1998.
3. The prima facie case was found to be made out against the accused. Accordingly, notice for the offence punishable U/s 29(1) (a) The Insecticides Act, 1968 was served upon the accused on 17.09.2001. The accusation was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was proceeded for complainant evidence.
4. In order to substantiate its case, the complainant has examined only four witnesses, which are as follows:
(1) CW1 A. S. Kardam, the Insecticide Inspector. (2) CW2 Sh. Arvind Kumar, the complainant. CC No.129/98 Page 2 of 9 (3) CW3 Sh. Vipin Bhatnagar, the witness to memos. (4) CW4 Sh. K. C. Jhelan, who rectified the IS number on the report.
5. Sh. A. S. Kardam (CW1) deposed that on 04.11.1996 he visited M/s Herbicides (India) Ltd. at the address and he had drawn the three samples. That the samples were purchased and cash memo was obtained by him. That the sample was sent for testing at Faridabad on 16.01.1997.
6. Sh. Arvind Kumar (CW2) deposed that he was duly competent to file the complaint vide memorandum dated 16.01.1997 and consent order dated 30.06.2006. That Mr. A. S. Kardam, the Insecticide Inspector drawn a sample from M/s Herbicides. That the sample was supermethrine 10% EC Batch no.01, manufacturing dated April 1996, expiry date July, 1998. That the report of sample was Ex.CW2/3 and the sample was misbranded. That a show cause notice was sent and a reply was received to the same. That he took permission to file the complaint.
7. Sh. Vipin Bhatnagar (CW3) deposed that on 05.11.1996 while being posted at Faridabad as Scientific Officer, he received six CC No.129/98 Page 3 of 9 samples of different insecticides from the Insecticide Inspector, Delhi. That the sample cypermethrine 10% EC Batch no.01 dated pf manufacturing August, 1996 and date of expiry July, 1998 was one of them. That after receipt, a separate code was assigned to it, which was W34 and a portion of the said sample was sent for analysis to the Regional Pesticide Testing Lab. Ltd., Chandigarh. That after analysis, the receipt of the sample signed by Sh. Nand Kishore was received in the Coding Cell. That the same was decoded and issued to the sender vide S.No.01762. The sample was reported to be misbranded.
8. Sh. K. C. Jhelan (CW4) deposed that he was working as Joint Director at Chandigarh since 2009. That a letter dated 29.07.11 was received in the laboratory from Joint Director, Agriculture Development Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. That he found that the IS number on the said report was wrongly written. That after confirming the same from the record, he rectified the IS number on the report Ex.CW4/A.
9. Statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which all the incriminating evidence was put to him. The accused controverted and denied the allegations leveled against him stating that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present CC No.129/98 Page 4 of 9 case by submitting that the samples were not properly analyased and, therefore, the report was incorrect. That he was not given an opportunity to defend himself as the report, which was supplied to him was not correct one. The accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
10. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he/she is proved guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving guilt of the accused exclusively lies on t he prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs to establish the culpability of the accused. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
Hence, the accused's right has been defeated by not sending the sample for analysis and test to the Central Insecticides Laboratory and on account of sheer inaction of the Insecticide Inspector, the self life of the sample of insecticide and no step was possible to be taken for its test and analysis by Central Insecticides Laboratory.
11. The statutory offence mentioned u/s 29 (1) (a) The Insecticides Act, 1968 provides that whoever imports, manufacturers, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes any insecticides deemed to be misbranded is liable to be punished. Thus, even stocking or exhibiting CC No.129/98 Page 5 of 9 for selling a misbranded insecticide is covered under the said section. Hence, if the complainant manages to prove that the insecticide that was seized from the shop of the accused was misbranded, the accused is liable to be convicted. It is an admitted fact that the accused was running a insecticide shop and three containers of insecticide isoproturon were seized from his shop.
12. To indict the accused for the said statutory offence, the complainant has to comply all the mandatory requirements as prescribed in the said Act. The provision of the statutory offence are required to be strictly construed and for holding the accused guilty, it is necessary that all the conditions laid down in the statute must be religiously followed. The relevant portion of the provision of Section 24, The Insecticides Act, 1968 are reproduced as under: "24. Report of Insecticide Analyst : (1) .....(3) Any document purporting to be a 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 notified in writing the Insecticide Inspector or the court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report (4). Unless the sample has already been tested or analyzed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory, where a person has under subsection (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 CC No.129/98 Page 6 of 9 accused, cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the Magistrate under subsection (6) of section 22 to be sent for test or analysis to the said laboratory, [which shall, within a period of thirty days, 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.
13. As per story of the prosecution, the sample in question was having manufacturing date 4th August, 1996 and expiry dated July, 1998. The analysis report sent to the accused is dated 16.01.1997. The accused replied to the said show cause notice vide reply dated 27.01.1997 wherein the accused did not agree with the analysis report by submitting that the test was not conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down. It is pertinent to mention here that the complaint was filed on 22.07.1998 and is silent as to whether the sample was again sent for analysis to Central Laboratory meaning thereby, the sample was sent to any Central Laboratory despite raising of an objection by the accused side over the result of the its report. The said misbranded article was having the expiry date as July, 1998. Hence, it becomes pertinent to mention here that present complaint also was filed in the end of July, 1998 i.e. on 22.07.1998.
14. In the instant case, on 02.11.1997 the report of Laboratory was notified in writing by the complainant to the accused vide CC No.129/98 Page 7 of 9 memorandum dated 16.01.1997. On 27.01.1997, the accused disputed the said report by submitting that the same does not seems to have been done in violation of the procedure laid down for that purpose. Thus, in accordance with section 24(3) of the said Act, the accused disputed the report of in writing within 28 days of the receipt of copy of the report. It is an admitted fact that the Laboratories of Chandigarh and Faridabad are not Central Pesticide Testing Laboratories, rather the same are Regional Pesticide Testing Laboratories. Thus, in accordance with the provision of Section 24(4) of the said Act, the accused was entitled to get the counter sample tested by a Central Insecticides Laboratory. However, the accused was denied the said valuable and inalienable right by the complainant as the said request of the accused was not acceded. The non compliance of the said provision by the complainant has deprived the accused of his right and opportunity to disprove the report of the Regional Laboratory. The said noncompliance of the essential procedural requirement has created reasonable suspicion in the story of the complainant, which in turn is sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused.
15. In the wake of the above discussion, the complainant has failed to discharge the onus of leading convincing and conclusive evidence CC No.129/98 Page 8 of 9 against the accused. Accordingly, the accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 29 (1) (a) The Insecticides Act, 1968.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT ON 28.01.2015 (RAJINDER KUMAR)
MM03(NORTH)/ROHINI
DELHI
CC No.129/98 Page 9 of 9