B L AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the petitioners, who are manufactures with the prayer that the proceedings of criminal Case No. 77a/91 State vs. M/s Merta Krishak Kraya Vikrya Sahakari Samiti, Merta City and ors. for the offence under Sec. 29 of the Insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1968") pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Merta City be quashed.

(2.) IT arises on the following circumstances:- On 5. 7. 1991, a complaint was filed by Harnath Singh, Assistant Director Agriculture (Quality Control) and Insecticide Inspector, Jaipur in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Merta City against the present petitioners, who are Manufacturers and apart form them against M/s Merta Krishak Kraya Vikrya Sahakari Samiti, Merta City District Nagaur and its Manager Nathus Ram, who are dealers of the insecticide in question. IT was stated in the complaint that on 25. 7. 1990, Assistant Director Agriculture (Quality Control) and Insecticide Inspector, Jaipur took sample of the insecticide BHC 10% D. P. (Gamma Isomer 1. 3%) from M/s Merta Krishak Kraya Vikrya Sahakari Samiti, merta City, who was dealer and prepared the fard and in that fard, it was also stated that batch number of the insecticide was RB-05 and date of manufacturing was July 1990 and date of expiry was June, 1992 and he divided the sample into three parts as required by law. One of the samples was sent for analysis to the Insecticide Analyst, State Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Govt. of Rajasthan, Durgapura, Jaipur and the Insecticide Analyst, State Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur gave his report on 13. 8. 1990, in which it was reported that the sample did not conform to the relevant IS specification No. 561-1978 in active ingredient and hence, it was misbranded.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding further, it would be worthwhile to quote here Sec. 24 of the Act of 1968. "report of Insecticide Analyst.- (1) The Insecticide Analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis under sub-Sec. (6) of Sec. 22, shall, within a period of sixty days, deliver to the Insecticide Inspector submitting it a signed report in duplicate in the prescribed form. (2) The Insecticide Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and shall retain the other copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the sample. (3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by an Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein, and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken has within twenty eight days of the receipt of a copy of the report notified in writing the Insecticide Inspector or the Court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. (4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory, where a person has under sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of the Insecticide Analyst's report, the court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or of the accused, cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the magistrate under sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 22 to be sent for test or analysis to the said laboratory, which shall make the test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or under the authority of, which shall make the test or analysis and report in writing signed by or under the authority of, the Director of the Central Insecticides Laboratory the result thereof, and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. (5) The cost of a test or analysis made by the Central Insecticides laboratory under sub-sec. (4) shall be paid by the complainant or the accused, as the court shall direct. "