BAYER INDIALTD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the applicant M/s. Bayer (India) Ltd., a company registered under the Company Act, with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1451 of 1986, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, of this case are that a complaint dated 7 -4 -1986 has been filed by the District Magistrate, Bareilly in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly against the applicant and two other co -accused alleging therein that the complainant was authorised by the State Government under Section 31(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 to institute present prosecution by way of filing the complaint of this case. According to the complaint, a sample of Matasistox 25 E.C. was taken on 6 -7 -1984 by Insecticides Inspector, Bareilly from the firm M/s. Misra Beej Bhandar, its proprietor was Dinesh Chandra Mishra, dealing with the sale of the insecticides manufactured by the applicant. The applicant is a firm and is the manufacturer of the insecticides. The aforesaid sample was sent for Chemical analysis to U.P. Fertilizer and Pesticides Quality Control Laboratory, Lucknow, after analysis the sample it was found misbranded as per report of the analyst dated 29 -9 -1984. The report was sent by a registered letter dated 12 -11 -1984 to the firm concerned. According to the report of the Public Analyst, the applicant and two other co -accused have committed offence punishable under Section 29 -B of the Insecticides Act, 1968, therefore, they may be summoned and punished according to law. The date of the manufacturing of the alleged pesticides was 28 -5 - 1984, its expiry date was 27 -5 -1985 and the complaint dated 7 -4 - 1986 was filed in the Court of learned Magistrate concerned on 17 -3 -1987. The alleged sample was misbranded as it was containing 21.40% Matasistox instead of 25%.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that no summon alongwith the complaint and report of the Public Analyst has been served on the applicant. The applicant's Manager came to know in respect of pendency of the present proceedings and he appeared before the Court concerned on 16 -7 -1987. The prosecution is based on the report of the Public Analyst, the sample was taken by the Insecticide Inspector from the manufacturer M/s. Misra Beej Bhandar on 6 -7 -1984 but same was found misbranded by the Public Analyst by its report dated 29 -9 -1984. The date of the manufacturing was 28 -5 -1984, the date of expiry of its use was 27 -5 -1987 but the complaint was filed on 17 -3 -1985 and the date of the appearance was 16 -7 -1987. The complaint was filed after the date of the expiry of the pesticides taken as sample its Self life was one year under the Act. After the expiry of the said period, the insecticide is not expected to retain its efficacy and safety. There is no explanation for inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The accused has important right to get the sample re -analysed from Central Insecticides Laboratory as provided by Section 24 (4) of the Insecticides Act. It is a mandatory provision, if after the date of expiry of the alleged insecticides the complaint is filed thereafter the re -analysis of the alleged sample, would be of no use. The right conferred to the accused under sub -section (4) of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act has been frustrated due to the inordinate delay in filing the complaint because no insecticides can be analysed after its expiry period. The order of issuing the process is bad in law and the prosecution of the applicant shall be an abuse of the process of the Court, therefore, the proceedings pending against the applicant in Criminal Case No. 1451 of 1986, in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly may be quashed.