Madras High Court
Yogesh Dutt vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 30 March, 2016
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 30.03.2016 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6390 of 2009, M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009 and Crl.M.P.(MD)SR.Nos.4673 to 4675 of 2016 Yogesh Dutt ... Petitioner/A2 -vs- The State of Tamilnadu through Thiru S.Krishnamoorthy, Assistant Director of Agriculture, Aruppukottai, Tamil Nadu. ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai and quash the same as devoid of merits as against the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan For respondent : Ms.V.Shoba Evangeline Veronica :O R D E R
This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai and quash the same as devoid of merits as against the petitioner.
2. The minimum facts that are required for adjudicating this petition, are as follows:
i) The petitioner / A2 does business in the name and style of Pesticide India Industries Limited and is a distributor of the insecticides manufactured by the 1st accused.
ii) On 21.08.2007, the complainant inspected the shop of the 4th accused, who is a retailer and took samples of an insecticide in terms of Section 22 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act, 1968) and sent one sample to the Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Madurai for analysis. The test report dated 17.09.2007 declared the sample as misbranded. Pursuant to that, a show cause notice together with the test report was sent to the petitioner for his explanation. The petitioner received the show cause notice on 08.01.2008 and by reply dated 24.01.2008, he expressed his intention in no uncertain terms to adduce evidence to contradict the test report in terms of Section 24(3) of the Act, 1968, by getting the referee sample reanalysed by the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad.
iii) Admittedly, the complainant obtained sanction on 19.09.2008 and filed the complaint on 02.01.2009 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai against four accused for offences under Sections 3(K) (1) of the Act, 1968 and 19(1)(v) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971.
3. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
4. The facts narrated above are admitted by both sides. The insecticide that was seized by the complainant was manufactured on 02.11.2006 and the date of expiry was given as 01.11.2008. The petitioner received the show cause notice on 08.01.2008 and by reply dated 24.01.2008, repudiated the test report and prayed for re-analysis in terms of Section 24 (3) of the Act, 1968 by Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad. Under such circumstances, the prosecution should have been launched by the complainant before 01.11.2008 that is before the date of expiry of the insecticide, but whereas the complainant slept over the matter and instituted the complaint only on 02.01.2009, which is after the expiry date. Therefore, the petitioner lost his valuable right under Section 24(3) of the Act, 1968 for re-analysis.
5. The complainant has filed a counter expatiating on the harm that would befall the society, if misbranded insecticides are allowed to be in circulation. One can have no quarrel with the complainant's anguish. Unfortunately, the complainant did not have public interest in mind in his official action, which is evident from the fact that the samples were drawn on 21.08.2007 and the complaint was launched only on 02.01.2009 after expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide. In the counter, the complainant pleads that a curative amendment has to be brought into enactment, which is no doubt laudable, but there should also be a curative antidote, administered to bureaucrats, like the complainant to prevent them from falling into administrative slumber.
6. It is trite that when a party has elected for re-analysis under Section 24(3) of the Act, 1968 within the stipulated time, he cannot be denied that opportunity by filing the complaint after expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Northern Mineral Limited vs. Union of India and another, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 726.
7. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the prosecution in C.C.No.31 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai is hereby quashed, vis-a-vis the petitioner herein. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai
2. Thiru S.Krishnamoorthy, Assistant Director of Agriculture, Aruppukottai, Tamil Nadu. .