AGRO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES Vs. R MUHAMEDU NAZAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the petitioners under Sec.482 of Crl.P.C. to quash the complaint and the proceedings thereon so far as the petitioners are concerned in C.C.No.577 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate at Musiri.

(2.) THE facts leading to the case are as follows: THE petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in this case and they are engaged in the manufacture of insecticides. THE respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners and three others alleging that on 21.2.1995 the complainant went to the premises of Sri Ranga Agencies at Kattuputhur and took samples of insecticides containing 500 grams packets and sent the same for analysis on 22.2.1995, and the report of the analyst was received on 25.3.1995 from the Testing Laboratory at Tiruchi, and as per the report of the analyst the sample sent for analysis failed in the active ingredient, and on the basis of the report of the analyst a show cause notice was sent to all the accused 1 to 6 in this case, and after obtaining the sanction from the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Musiri, a prosecution was launched in C.C.No.577 of 1996 against the petitioners and three others on a charge that insecticides is misbranded. THE complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate at Musiri only on 6.3.1996 though the analysis report was received by the complainant as early as on 25.3.1995. THE petitioners have received summons and appeared before the court on 5.11.1996 and the copies of the prosecution was given to them on 5.11.1996. After the receipt of the copies the petitioners have denied the commission of any offence and the case was posted for trial on 13.11.1996. On 13.11.1996 the 5th accused the seller of the product to the 6th accused, who in turn is the seller of the product to the complainant have admitted the offence and paid the fine imposed by the Judicial Magistrate at Musiri. THEse petitioners A-1 to A-3 filed a petition before the Magistrate's Court praying to send the samples of the alleged insecticide to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad, Haryana for re-analysis and report. THE Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the said application in Crl.M.P.No.1752 of 1996 in C.C.No.577 of 1996 on the ground that the shelf life of the product has already expired. THE product under prosecution is not manufactured by him. THE petitioners could not avail the opportunity of sending the sample in dispute for re-analysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad, Haryana. So the petitioners, who are accused 1 to 3, seek to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.577 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate's Court at Musiri.

(3.) THUS Sec.24 of the Insecticides Act confers two rights i.e., the right to challenge the correctness of the report of the analysis on the receipt of the show cause notice and secondly to challenge the same and to make a request before the court for re-analysis of the counter sample after the complaint is filed. The provisions of this section simply provide that in case a written request is made by the dealer expressing its intention to controvert the report of the Analyst, the report shall not be conclusive evidence of the facts contained therein. Therefore, the service of the notice regarding the sample misbranded or intimating the dealer that the re-analysis can be ordered by a court before the date of expiry of the shelf-life of the insecticide is of no consequence. The material requirement of the Act is that the complaint should be filed and the accused should be served well in time before the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide in question so as to enable the accused persons to challenge the correctness of the report of the analyst by forwarding the counter part of the sample to the Central Laboratory. If this right of an accused under the Act is violated by inaction or omission or delay on the part of the department, the same is fatal to the prosecution.