KILPEST PRIVATE LIMITED FORMULATORS OF PESTICIDES Vs. STATE OF M P AND U S SAIYAM DEPUTY DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DE-JURE by taking the shelter of the statutory umbrella of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for bravity 'the Act') and particularly Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (4) and further placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid Private Limited 2001 IAC 544 (SCI) 544, it has been contended learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the prosecution launched by respondent No. 1 under the said Act against the present petitioners is zero.

(2.) ACCORDING to prosecution's own showing, the sample of monocrotophos which is a pesticide was obtained by the Inspector appointed under the said Act on 28/7/1994. According to unamended Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the said Act, the report of the sample is required to be delivered within 60 days by the analyst prescribed under the Act. As per the prosecution's own showing the test was completed by the analyst on 13/10/1994. The report was not delivered within 60 days from the date of collecting of the sample in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the said Act. All these facts are undisputed. Thus, there is inherent lacuna in testing the sample and sending its report. Admittedly, the sample was not tested by the analyst appointed under the Act, within 60 days as envisaged under Section 24 (1) of the Act.

(3.) APART from this, the expiry date of bulk from which sample of pesticide was obtained, was April, 1995 and the pesticide was manufactured in November, 1993. As per the own showing of the prosecution, the complaint was filed before the competent Court on 20/3/1995. On going through the record, it is gathered that for the first time the Court fixed the date for appearance of accused on 3/5/1995 which would mean that after the expiry of the date of impugned pesticide. Learned Counsel for the parties after verifying the record of the trial Court submitted that for the first time the accused persons/petitioners appeared in the Court on 2/8/2001 which would mean that several years after the date of expiry of the sample of the pesticide. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act, the accused has a right to get the sample examined for test or analysis to the Laboratory.