DEPUTY DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE Vs. BAYER INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not denied that a copy of Ex. P-3 report of the Insecticides Analyst was not delivered to or served upon the third accused. In the instant case, the sample was taken from the first accused, one of the dealers of the third accused. It is true that Section 24 (2) of the Insecticides Act lays down that the Insecticides Inspector, on receipt of report of the Insecticides Analyst, shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken. But, it must be borne in mind that Ex. P-3 was relied upon by the prosection and used against the third accused to secure its conviction, without examining the Insecticides Analyst. It is implicit in Section 24 (2) of the Act, having regard to the intendment of the Parliament expressed in sub-section (3), that a copy of the report of the Jnsecticides Analyst should be served upon all the accused so long as the report of the Insecticides Analyst is sought to be used against all of them. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is, therefore, not open to attack.

(2.) I must also observe that the other ground assigned by the learned Sessions Judge for acquitting the third accused cannot be challenged as Rule 34 of the Insecticides Rules is mandatory and non-compliance with the provisions thereof, vitiates prosecution for any of the offence in relation to which observance of Rule 34 is mandatory.

(3.) In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. A. A. dismissed.