JAI CHEMICAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint Annexure P-1 dated February 10, 1994, filed against them under Section 29(1) and 3(k)(i) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter in short, the Act).

(2.) THE petitioners' contention is that complaint has been filed against them alongwith other accused persons on the allegations that a sample of insecticide Monocrotophos of batch No. GC-06 was drawn from the premises of M/s. Kissan Beej Bhandar, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa, on May 16, 1993, by the complainant-Insecticide Inspector. The said sample was sent to the Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh, for analysis. The sample was found not in conformity with the ISI specification. Petitioner No. 1 is shown as the manufacturer of the said insecticide, while in the complaint no allegation is made against petitioner-Ashok Kumar as to how he is responsible for the commission of this offence. Petitioners' learned counsel further contends that no show cause notice was given to the petitioners. Copy of the analyst report was never supplied to them. Under section 24(2) and (3) of the Act, if the copy of the analyst report would have been supplied to them, they could have availed of their right of getting the second sample re-analysed. The said insecticide was manufactured on March 12, 1992. The sample was drawn on May 16, 1993, and its shelf life expired on March 11, 1994. The complaint was lodged on February 10, 1994, and first date fixed for the appearance of the accused persons was February 23, 1994. They could not get the information of the summons before the shelf life expiry date of the insecticide i.e. March 11, 1994. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint be quashed against them.

(3.) PETITIONER 's learned counsel, relying on Salil Singhal v. State of Haryana, 1992(1) RecentCR 224 and Trilok Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990(3) RecentCR 194, contended that the basis of this complaint is the analyst report. Under sections 24(2) and (3) of the Act copy of the report is required to be sent to the person from whom the sample is taken, but if on the basis of this analyst report the manufacturer is to be prosecuted for the said offence, he is also entitled to get a copy of the analyst report, so that he may apply that the second sample be sent for re-analysis. Since he has been deprived of this legal right, the complaint filed against him is liable to be quashed. He further contended that the complaint was filed on February 10, 1994, while the expiry date of the shelf life of the said insecticide was March 11, 1994. Before March 11, 1994, the petitioners could not get the notice of the filing of the complaint. No summons of the date of February 23, 1994, were received by them. They could know about the filing of the complaint only after the said expiry date. Hence on this ground also the complaint is liable to be quashed, as thereby they have been further deprived of the aforesaid right. To buttress his contention, he has relied on Sant Lal and another v. State of Punjab, 1995(1) AIJ 275.