GUPTA CHEMICALS P LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this criminal misc. petition, others dated 30. 3. 2000 (Ann. 3) of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhawani Mandi (Jhalawar) confirmed by the Special Judge (SC/st Prevention of atrocities Act) Jhalawar on 15. 9. 2000 (Ann. 4) have been challenged with further prayer to quash proceedings pending against petitioners (1) Gupta Chemicals (P) Ltd. & (2) Pushpendra Gupta in Cr. Case No. 149/95.

(2.) IN nut shell the circumstances resulting in prosecution of the petitioners are that on 31. 7. 1992 an INsecticide INspector Ram Swaroop Sharma holding post of Agriculture Officer. Plant Protection inspected shop of M/s Ramchandra Jai Narain Bhutra Bhawani Mandi and took a sample of Sungor 30% EC, Batch No. SE10 having manufacturing date as January 92 & expiry as June 93. This sample was sent for analysis and as per its report of 20th October 1992 it was not conforming to prescribed standards, thereby a show cause notice was sent on 20. 12. 92 to the dealer, distributor and manufacturer. The petitioners are manufacturers of aforesaid sample of insecticide. After sanction for prosecution u/s. 31 of the INsecticide Act, 1968 (for short `act'), criminal complaint was filed by the INsecticide INspector (respondent No. 2) before Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhawani Mandi on 27. 7. 1995 against the dealer (from whom the sample of insecticide was taken by the respondent No. 2), distributor and manufacturing company so also their Directors & Managers for violation of Sections 3 (k) and 17 (10 (a), punishable u/s. 29 (1) (a) of the Act. Accordingly criminal proceedings commenced against petitioner No. 1 (Manufacturing company) and No. 2 Pushpendra Gupta (Quality Control Dy GM of the petitioner No. 1) so also others viz dealer & distributor. However, on 3. 2. 96 an application was filed before the trial Court u/s. 258 Crpc for quashing these criminal proceedings and to release all the accused. This application was dismissed directing the learned counsel for the served accused to produce remaining unserved accused, by the impugned order dated 30. 3. 2000, against which two revision petition Nos. 68 & 69 of were filed by M/s Ramchandra Jainarain Bhutra & others (including the petitioners) but were dismissed by the revisional court by its order dated 15. 9. 2000. Hence this criminal misc. petition.

(3.) FURTHER this petition u/s. 482 Crpc is not maintainable at the instance of the accused (petitioners) who as is evident from the impugned order of the learned subordinate Magistrate have not at all appeared before him in complaint after having taken cognizance of the commission of offence u/s. 29 of the Act despite issue of process and summons against them, inasmuch as if carefully looked at the application u/s. 258 Crpc filed on 3. 2. 96 (certified xerox copy thereof has been produced as Ann. 2 to the instant petition) I find that it bears signature of one Jainarain Bhutra from whose shop sample was taken by the respondent No. 2 which was found not conforming to the prescribed standard. That being so, the learned Magistrate in his order dated 30. 3. 2000 directed the counsel for the other accused to produce rest of co- accused. Moreover the present petition u/s. 482 Cr. PC is only by the manufacturing company and its Dy. GM (quality control) (who have even not put their appearance before the Magistrate in complaint case), and not by other co-accused atleast the dealer from whose shop the insecticide sample was taken by the inspector (respondent No. 2), because under sub Section (3) of Sec. 24 of the Act the report signed by an Insecticide Analyst shall be conclusive evidence only against a person from whom the sample had been taken, and that apart, sub section (4) comes into operation unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticide Laboratory. That being so, the Apex Court in YRS Rao vs. Dy Director of Agriculture (1), held as under:- "we are of the view that under sub section (3) of Section 24 the report signed by an Insecticide Analyst shall be conclusive evidence only against a person from whom the sample had been taken and who had the opportunity to notify his intention to contest its correctness as mentioned therein but had availed of such opportunity. "sub-section (4) comes into operation when the sample has not already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticide Laboratory. "