NARAYANAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first accused in C.C.No.164 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, is the petitioner. This revision is restricted to the return of sulphur seized from the petitioner by the prosecuting agency on 20.12.1985, marked as M.Os.1 to 4 series.

(2.) A few facts will be necessary to dispose of this revision. The petitioner along with the firm Agro Chemicals and Fertilizers of which he is the proprietor, and four others were tried for offences underSecs.9 (1), 13 (1), 17 (1) and 18 (1) (a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Sec.29 (1) (a) (b) and (c) of the said Act. Accused Nos.3 to 6 are stated to be buyers of sulphur from the list and second accused. On 20-12-1985, the complainant who is the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Quality Control), Coimbatore, on suspicion, inspected the manufacturing unit and Sales office of the petitioner at Coimbatore when the petitioner was present and seized certain records from the sales office and sulphur from the manufacturing unit situate at another place. It was the case of the prosecution that the petitioner did not have a valid licence for manufacturing and selling sulphur under the Insecticides Act. The samples taken of the seized sulphur, were sent for analysis to the pesticides testing laboratory, Coimbatore. The report, marked as Ex.P-6, declares that the sample sent was misbranded under Sub-cl.(1) of Cl.(k) of Sec.3 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. Prosecution was thereafter launched.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of confiscation made by the trial court, the petitioner preferred C.C.No.117 of 1987 on the file of the first Additional Sessions Judge, coimbatore. The appellate Judge concurred with the findings of the trial Magistrate and held that the substance involved was sulphur dust and confiscation had been rightly made Sec.25 (2) of the Act.