Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) the second, he shall produce to the court before which proceedings, if any, are instituted in respect of the insecticide."

As to how the report of the Insecticide Analyst is to be considered, reference may be made to Section 24 of the Act which is as under :

"24. Report of insecticide Analyst. - (1) The Insecticide Analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test of analysis under sub-section (6) of Section 22, shall, within a period of sixty days, deliver to the Insecticide Inspector submitting it a signed report in duplicate in the prescribed form.

3. No. of sample

4. Date of receipt

5. Name of Insecticide purporting to be contained in the sample

6. Condition of the seals of the package

7. Result of test or analysis with protocols of test applied L. No. 35 dt. 8.8.94 94 UF 703. March, 94 Feb., 95 One 8.8.94 Monocrotophos 36% SL Intact Tech.Contt. 26.20% Protocol of test applied as per IS No. 8074.

RESULT Misbranded."

After unique Farmaid had been served with the notice and the report aforesaid of the Quality Control Laboratory alleging that provisions of Sections 3(k)(i), 17 and 18 of the Act had been contravened, in its reply to the show-cause Unique Farmaid denied the allegations and stated that "we intend to adduce evidence in support of our contention and request that a sample should be got analysed from Central Insecticides Laboratory as per provisions of Section 24 of the Act at the cost of the company". The Insecticide Inspector did not avert to this request of the Unique Farmaid and, as stated above, filed a criminal complaint against six accused, namely, M/s. Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd., (2) Hari Singh Verma, Sales Officer of Unique Farmaid, (3) M/s. Vikas Beej Bhandar, (4) Sukhbir Singh, Proprietor of the Vikas Beej Bhandar, (5) M/s. Gandhi Beej Bhandar, Sonepat and (6) Satbir Singh, Proprietor, Gandhi Beej Bhandar. It is stated in the complaint that sample of the same insecticide was also lifted from the shop premises of M/s. Gandhi Beej Bhandar. In one of the appeals before us (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2982/97), we find there is a reply by the Insecticide Inspector stating that it is only the court which is competent to get the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory. All these facts are not in dispute.

(a) that he acquired the insecticide from an importer or a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof;

(b) that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the insecticide in any way contravened any provision of this Act; and

(c) that the insecticide, while in his possession, was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it."

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 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. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., [1981] 3 SCC 72 and Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Pawan Kumar Saraf & Anr., [1999] 2 SCC 400 all under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that the respondents in these appeals have been deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory under sub- section (4) of Section 24 of the Act. Under sub-section (3) of Section 24 report signed by the Insecticide analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and shall be conclusive evidence against the accused only if the accused do not, within 28 days of the receipt of the report, notify in writing to the Insecticides Inspector or the Court before which proceedings are pending that they intend to adduce evidence to controvert the report. In the present cases Insecticide Inspector was notified that the accused intended to adduce evidence to controvert the report. By the time the matter reached the court, shelf life of the sample had already expired and no purpose would have been served informing the court of such an intention. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was, therefore, not conclusive. A valuable right had been conferred on the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and in the circumstances of the case accused have been deprived of that right, thus, prejudicing them in their defence.