Punjab-Haryana High Court
Trilok Singh, Proprietor, United ... vs State Of Punjab Through Shri Charan ... on 15 May, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1990)98PLR225
JUDGMENT S.S. Grewal, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to quashment of complaint under Section 3(k)(i),17, 18, 33 punishable under section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as tie Act) read with Rules 27 (5) of (he 'insecticides Rules), 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and consequent proceedings taken thereunder.
2. In brief, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition as emerge from complaint, Annexure P-1, are, that Shri Charan Singh Bhullar, insecticide Inspector, filed the aforesaid complaint against M/S Daulat Ram Kamra & Sons (hereinafter referred to as the dealer) and Shri Trilok Singh proprietor of M/S United Pesticides, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as the Manufacturer), the present petitioner on the allegations that on 25-8-1987 Shri Wasawa Ram Insecticide Inpector Fazilka along with Shri Jarnail Singh. A.S.I. Fazilka went to the shop of dealer at Fazilka, and Harbans Lal son of Shri Daulat Ram Kamra proprietor was present in the shop The insecticide Inspector after giving intimation in writing, took sample of United Mono (Monocrotophos 36% S.L.) of Batch No. 6 manufactured on 25.8.1987. Three sealed containers of United Mono (Monocrotophos 36% SL) each measuring ore litre were taken as sample vide seizure memo. Thereafter the containers were duly sealed. The three containers were put in polythene bags which were duly sealed. Cost of (be sample was also paid, to the dealer at that time. One. S(cis)aled sample was handed over to Harbans Lal aforesaid and the second ore was sent to Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana on the following day whereas, the third was kept in the office of Insecticide Inspector on 26.8.1987. As per report of the Analyst it was found that the said sample did not conform to the relevant ISI specification in the active ingrenient as if contained only 16.71% of such ingredient, instead of 36% SL. According to the Insecticide Inspector the sample of Insecticide taken in this case was misbranded as contemplated under section 3(k)(i) of the Act It was further pleaded that the copy of the analysis was, also delivered to the dealer, vide, office letter No. 20383 dated 21.10.1987. In view of the report of Analyst it was further alleged that the insectici es supplied by manufacturer to the dealer was misbranded ; that the manufacturer and the dealer had jointly committed an offence punishable under sections 17, 18, 3(k)(i) and 33 punishable under section 29 of the Act.
3. The learned counsel for the parties were heard.
4. It was mainly contended that Batch No. 6 from which the sample of insecticide was taken in the instant case was manufactured in April, 1987, and the expiry date mentioned therein was March 1988 On this basis it was further submitted that the manufacturer too had a valuable right under section 24(3) of the Act to get the sample analysed from the Central Insecide Laboratory, which, would supersede the report of the Analyst. The manufacturer was neither provided with the sample of insecticide taken from the dealer in the instant case, nor, the copy of the report of the Analyst was supplied to the manufacturer before filing she impugned complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur on 18-7-1988, and, that information with regard to the filing of such complaint was actually received by the manufacturer through its dealer on 29.7.1989.
5. In view of the Division Bench authority of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Y.R.S. Rao v. Deputy Director of Agriculture, 1989 Cri L.J. 1364, persons from whom she sample is not taken cannot insist upon being given a sample and cannot complain of any discrimination vis-a-vis the person from whom the sample is drawn. Thus mere fact that no sample of insecticide, taken in the instant case, from the dealer, was not supplied to the manufacturer would not be sufficient to hold that the manufacturer had been deprived of valuable light to get the sample analysed from the Central insecticides labratory. However, there is no specific allegation in the impugned complaint (Annexure P-1) that copy of the report of the Analyst was also sent to the manufacturer against whom prosecution has been launched on the basis of the said report In para 8 of the complaint it is merely mentioned Chat such a report was delivered to the dealer vide office letter No. 20383 dated 21.10.1987. in these circumstances, the assertion made on behalf of the respondents in their return that such a report was also sent to the manufacturer, cannot be considered to be correct. It is settled law that for quashment of complaint mainly the allegations in the complaint itself, or, other reliable material brought on the record have to be taken into consideration. In the absence of any such reliable material on the record of this petition only the allegations in the complaint in this regard have to be taken into consideration.
6. A careful perusal of the authority in Y.R.S. Rao's case (supra), clearly indicates that the report of the test or analysis of the Central Insecticides Laboratory made under Sub-section (4) of Section 24 displaces the report of the Analyst referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 24 This opportunity to rebut the report is provided under the Act to all persons (including the manufacturer), who are sought to be prosecuted on the basis of the report of the Insecticide Analyst's report with regard to the sample of insecticide taken by the Insecticide Inspector under Section 22 of the Act. While the report may be conclusive of the facts stated therein, both against the person from whom the sample is drawn, as well as the persons who are sought to be prosecuted on the basis of that report both have an opportunity to rebut the report of the Insecticide Analyst, in the case of the former by sending the sample in the possession of the person from whom the sample is drawn and in other cases by sending the sample deposited with the Magistrate, for analysis by and report of the Central Insecticides Laboratory Thus defence is open to all those that are likely to be prosecuted on the strength of an Analyst's report in respect of a sample not taken from them, to question its correctness by requiring the Court to send the sample deposited with u for analysis by the Central Laboratory These is no discrimination between the person from whom the sample is drawn and, the other persons *ho are sought to be proceeeded against on the basis of the same report, as both are given an opportunity of rebutting the correctness of the Analyst's Report. The inference against the person from whom tie sample is drawn may be stronger, and. the defences open to him may be different or fewer than the defences that may be open to person other thin those from whom the samples are drawn but are sought t(r) be made liable That apart these persons fall into two different categories. Other persons from whom the sample is not taken cannot insist upon being given a sample and cannot complain of any discrimination vis-a-vis the person whom the sample is drawn.
7. I find further support in my view from Single Bench authority of this Court in H. Lange v. The State of Punjab, 1986(1) Chd. L.R. 383, wherein it was held that it is correct that under Sub-section 2 of Section 24, there is no obligation on the Insecticide Inspector to supply a copy of the report of the Analyst to the manufacturer of the Insecticide, but if the manufacturer of insecticide is sought to be prosecuted, (here is no reason why a copy of the report should not be supplied to him. The object of making the provision for delivery of the copy of the report is to give an opportunity to the person concerned to controvert the report in case he is prosecuted. Therefore, irrespective of the provision contained in Sub-section (2) the ends of justice demand that the person who is sought to be prosecuted must be supplied with a copy of the report. The valuable right to get the sample analysed under Section 24(4) of the Act before the expiry date, has been denied to the manufacturer. Thus, uadue and unexplained delay in launching the prosecution even after more than ten months of the receipt of the report toe Analyst, or, the continuance of procedings against the manufacturer on the basis of such a report, in my opinion, would amount to abuse of the process of the Court, in the present case.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned complaint and consequent proceedings taken thereundder against the manufacturer i e. the present petitioner, alone, are directed to be quashed and this petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. This order, would, however, not cover the case of dealer or other co-accused.