Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. In the light of the legal position propounded in the cases referred to above, it is to be seen whether the petitioners were deprived of their right of retesting of the insecticide sample and the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.

8. (i) Misc. Petition No. 548/98 The relevant facts are that the sample was collected by the Insecticide Inspector on 4-3-86. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was received on or after 7-5-86. The date of the expiry of the sample was 12-9-87. The complaint was filed on 24-8-87. It is stated in the complaint that the Insecticide Inspector had given notice about the report of the Insecticide Analyst to the petitioners who are manufacturers. The petitioners in their reply sent within 28 days of the receipt of the notice had desired retesting of the sample. However, it is not averred in the complaint that the second sample was sent to the C.I.L. for testing. It is significant to point out that the petitioners have been served in the case after the date of the expiry of self life of the insecticide. The fact remains that the second sample of the insecticide was not tested by the C.I.L. though a specific request was made by the petitioners. As already stated, this is the view of this Court that the sample can be retested by the C.I.L. without the intervention of the Court. It was the duty of the Insecticide Inspector to have sent the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory when the petitioners had made request for retesting. The petitioners had no occasion to make a request to the Magistrate for sending the sample to the C.I.L. as by the time the service was effected on them the self life of sample of the insecticide had expired. Since the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right of retesting of insecticide by the C.I.L. the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. The continuance of proceedings against the petitioners will amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

(ii) Misc. Petition No. 555/98 The relevant facts are that the sample of the insecticide was taken on 18-7-89. The report of the Public Analyst was received on or after 12-9-89. The date of the expiry of insecticide was October, 1990. The complaint was filed by the Insecticide Inspector before the Magistrate on 23-1-92 i.e. after the expiry of the self life of the insecticide. It is obvious that the petitioners who are manufacturers had no occasion to get the sample tested by the C.I.L through the intervention of the Court. The facts indicate that the Insecticide Inspector had given notice to the petitioners on 25-10-89 about the report of the Insecticide Analyst. In their reply dt. 3-11 -89 the petitioners had desired for sending a copy of the report of the Insecticide Analyst which was done on 10-11-89. The petitioners thereafter made a request vide their letter dt. 17-10-89 for retesting of the sample of insecticide. However, the Insecticide Inspector did not care to send the second sample to C.I.L. for retesting. As already stated, the Insecticide Inspector could get the second sample by the C.I.L. without the intervention of the Court. Since the second sample was not got tested by C.I.L. though a request was made by the petitioners, it has to be accepted that the petitioners were deprived of their right of testing of the sample by the C.I.L. The continuance of proceedings against the petitioners will amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

(iii) Misc. Petition No. 488/98 The facts indicate that the sample of the insecticide was taken by the Insecticide Inspector on 16-9-92. Report of the Insecticide Analyst was received on or after 17-11 -92. The expiry date of the insecticide was July, 1994. The complaint against the petitioners and others was filed on 14-9-95. It is obvious that the complaint was filed after the expiry of the self life of the insecticide. The petitioners had thus no opportunity to get the sample tested by the C.I.L. The averments in the complaint reveal that a notice was sent to the petitioners on 12-3-93 about the report of the Insecticide Analyst. By their reply dt. 20-3-93 the petitioners had requested for the retesting of the insecticide. However, it was not done. As already held, the Insecticide Inspector could get the second sample retested by the C.I.L. without the intervention of the Court. It was not done despite the request of the petitioners. As the petitioners were deprived of their valuable right of retesting of the sample by the C.I.L. the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.

(vii) Misc. Petition No. 852/98 :

The facts indicate that the sample of insecticide was purchased by the Inspector or 12-3-1986. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was received on or after 12-6-1986. The complaint was filed on 13-3-1987 against the petitioners and others. The date of the expiry of the self-life of the insecticide was September, 1987. However, by Sept., 1987 the petitioners were not served. It is not averred in the complaint that prior to the filing of the complaint the Insecticide Inspector had given a notice to the petitioners about the report of the Insecticide Analyst. Since the self-life of the insecticide has expired, the petitioners have been deprived of their right of retesting the sample by the C.I.L. The continuance of the trial against the petitioners is abuse of the process of the Court and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.