Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to call for the records relating to the proceedings in STC.Nos.344 and 543 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur and to quash the same.

2.The case of the prosecution in all the matters are in brief:-

3.Insofar as Crl.O.P.(MD) No.19427 of 2018 is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that on 07.09.2016, the agricultural officer inspected the shop, which belongs to the 4th accused, namely Vijayaragavan and at that time, he lifted the sample of insecticide, called Profenofos 50% E.C. by following due procedure. After following due procedures, the sample was sent to the Insecticides Analyst, PTL, Theni on 09.09.2016 and that was tested on 19.09.2016. A report was received on the same day stating that it is a misbranded one. So, on the basis of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the aforesaid complaint, the case was filed, which was taken cognizance in STC.No.344 of 2018. Seeking quashment of the same, the Senior Manager of Bio-Stadt India Ltd., Jammu, has filed this petition.

4.Similarly, insofar as Crl.O.P.(MD) No.21278 of 2018 is concerned, the very same sample of Profenofos 50% E.C., was lifted from the shop of S.Durga Raj, Sabari Agro Traders Retail Shop, Srivilliputhur by the respondent on 30.08.2016. After completing the formal procedures, sample was lifted and that was sent to the laboratory. Finding that it was misbranded one, the case was registered, after completing the procedural formalities, which was also taken cognizance in STC.No.543 of 2018. Seeking quashment of the same, the Senior Manager of Bio-Stadt India Ltd., Jammu has filed this petition.

19.The purpose and reason for taking the sample procedure has its own purpose and meaning. As per Section 22 (6) of the Act, one sample must be restored to the person, from whom the sample was taken and another portion must be sent to the analysts and second portion must be produced before the Court. So, according to the respondent, when no proceeding was pending on the date of the aforesaid process, no question of depositing the same with the Court arises. But this sort of explanation cannot be accepted. The respondent ought not to have waited till the payment of cost by the petitioners. They ought to have filed the complaint before the concerned Court before the expiry of the self life period. Even after the filing of the complaint, there is no bar for the accused person to exercise the option for sending the deposited sample for reanalysis. Such a right is always available to the accused persons. So, the contention on the part of the respondent that only because of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis non-payment of the cost within time, it was not sent for analysis cannot be taken into account. Without waiting for the cost to be deposited, the complaint ought to have been filed. But that was not done.

(c) that the insecticide, while in his possession, was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it."
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. Procedure for testing the sample is prescribed and if it is contravened to the prejudice of the accused, he certainly has 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 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, expiry date of the insecticide was already over and sending of sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory at that late stage would be of no consequence. This issue is no longer res integra. In The State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., 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 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 dispatch so that the accused may opt to avail the statutory defence. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 & Ors., [1998] 5 SCC 343 under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, AIR (1967) SC 970; Chetumal v.