HINDUSTAN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON January 1, 1991, Shri Satpal Sharma, Insecticide Inspector, visited the business premises of Sodhi Kheti Sewa Centre, Sardulgarh. At that time, Shri Bakhshish Singh Dhillon, Agriculture Officer, was with him. Sodhi Kheti Sewa Centre was dealing in the sale of insecticides/pesticides under a licence granted to them by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bhatinda. 50 kgs. of Isoprotourn 75 per cent. was lying in the shop for sale to the farmers for use in their agricultural fields. This insecticide had been manufactured by Hindustan Chemical Industries, Bahadurgarh. Sodhi Kheti Sewa Centre had got this insecticide from Goyal Khad Bhandar, insecticides dealer, Mansa. After disclosing his intention that he was an Insecticides Inspector authorised to seize samples of insecticides from its dealer through a notice in writing on Form No. XII, he purchased 500 gms. of Isoprotourn 75 per cent. contained in three-containers on payment of the necessary price to the proprietor, Shri Resham Singh Sodhi. Each of the sample containers was put in a separate polythene bag. Each polythene bag was sealed with seal impression IEI/21/bhatinda. One sealed sample container was handed over to Shri Resham Singh Sodhi, proprietor of the said business. One sealed container was handed over to Shri Paramjit Singh, Agriculture Inspector, on January 4, 1991. The Chief Agriculture Officer sent the sealed sample for analysis to the Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, vide letter No. 884, dated January 7, 1991. The sample was analysed by the insecticide analyst, vide A. R. No. 577, dated February 25, 1991, the report of the analyst was sent to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bhatinda. The sample was found misbranded inasmuch as it was not conforming to the ISI specifications. As against 75 per cent. Isoprotourn content, 48. 57 per cent. Isoprotourn content was found in the sample. Vide letter No. 3408, dated March 4, 1991, a copy of the report of the analyst was sent to the dealer along with a show-cause notice calling upon him to show cause why prosecution be not launched. The dealer gave a reply to the show-cause notice. The Chief Agriculture O'fficer sent a show-cause notice to the distributor also but no reply came. Isoprotourn 75 per cent. was found misbranded. It is an offence under the Insecticides Act to sell, stock or manufacture insecticides/pesticides/weedicide which are found misbranded or sub-standard. Shri Satpal Sharma, Insecticide Inspector, instituted a complaint under Sections 3 (k) (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act and Rule 27 (5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, against the dealer, distributor and manufacturer in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mansa.

(2.) HINDUSTAN Chemical Industries has. petitioned this court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, read with article 227 of the Constitution of India praying that the complaint, annexure P-1, be quashed together with every consequential proceeding taken subsequent to its institution urging that the shelf life of the insecticides expired in December, 1992. The complaint, annexure P-1, was instituted on May 19, 1993, the show-cause notice was served upon them, vide letter No. 3413, dated March 4, 1991, by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bhatinda. They submitted a reply, annexure P-3, to the show-cause notice expressing that they were not satisfied with the result of the analysis arrived at by the insecticides analyst and the other portion of the sample be sent for analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. In response to the reply to the show cause, the second portion of the sample was not sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. They have, thus, been deprived of their valuable right of asking for analysis of the sample granted to them by Section 24 (4) of the Insecticides Act. The complaint, annexure P-1, was filed against the company through its employee, Shri Balraj Kumar, manager, who left the company in the year 1994. The complaint became infirm when the accused was summoned after the expiry of the shelf life of the product.

(3.) IT was submitted that the accused could make this request within twenty-eight days of the receipt of the copy of the report of the analyst either to the Insecticides Inspector or the court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample were pending for re-analysis of the sample. He could have made this request to the court before he was summoned for trial. He was summoned for trial in the year 1996. It was submitted that prior to being summoned, he could not have made this request for analysis of the sample. Prior to December, 1992, he could not have made the request for analysis as no complaint was then pending before the magistrate. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to the use of words "the court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending" in Section 24 (3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. In my opinion, the use of the words "or the court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending" should not be given such narrow interpretation. In the contemplation of law, the prosecution shall be deemed to be pending before the magistrate after the Insecticide Analyst had conveyed the result of the analysis to the Chief Agriculture Officer. In this case, the result of the analysis was conveyed to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bhatinda, on February 25, 1991. The Chief Agriculture Officer, Bhatinda, conveyed the result of the analysis to the accused on March 4, 1991. In response to the show-cause notice, the accused gave a reply, annexure P-3. The accused prayed that re-analysis of the sample be carried out as they were not satisfied with the report of the analysis carried out by the analyst. The Chief Agriculture Officer, Bhatinda/insecticide Inspector never sent the second portion of the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. It was the duty of the accused to have deposited the cost of a test or analysis to be made by the Central Insecticides Laboratory or if the accused was not in a position to bear the cost of the test or analysis, the accused should have made a request that such cost be borne by the complainant as envisaged by Section 24 (5) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. In this case, there is no evidence that the accused made any follow up of reply to the show-cause notice, annexure P-3. It was the duty of the accused to have approached the court after the receipt of the show-cause notice and make a request for analysis to the court or he should have approached the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bhatinda, and made a request for deposit of the cost of re-analysis of the sample to be made by the Central Insecticides Laboratory.