PESTICIDES INDIA LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing criminal prosecution launched against the petitioners under the provisions of Section 29(1) (a) of the Pesticides Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act of 1968').

(2.) The facts in brief are that on 30.11.1991, premises of M/s. Abu Road Krishi Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Abu Road (Petitioner No. 4) was inspected by the Insecticide Inspector and he took sample of Methyl Parathion 2% Dust Powder Batch No. 91 D 51. This product was manufactured on 18.4.1991 and had expiry date of 17.10.1992. The sample was sent to the Agriculture Research Officer (Quality Control), State Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Durgapura, Jaipur for analysis on 2.12.1991. The sample was tested and it was declared to be misbranded by report dated 15.1.1992. Said analysis report was sent to the petitioner no. 4 with show cause notice dated 21.1.1992, copy of report was also sent to the manufacturer-Pesticides India Ltd. with show cause notice dated 21.1.1992. The requisite sanction for prosecuting the petitioners was obtained from the state government which was accorded vide order dated 7.7.1992. The petitioners' contention is that the petitioners submitted a letter of request to the Insecticides Inspector which is dated 29.1.1992 by which the petitioners requested that they want to rebut the analysis report dated 15.1.1992 and as per the record of the trial court itself, the Insecticides Inspector by letter informed the court below that he also received one letter dated 3.2.1992 from the petitioner no. 4, dealer of the petitioner no.l, by which he conveyed that the dealer is intending to controvert the report dated 15.1.1992. It appears from the first order-sheet drawn by the court below itself that the court passed the order that in case, the accused persons deposit Rs. 95/- which is the fees required for testing of the sample at the instance of the accused persons, then the sample may be sent to the Director, Central Insecticides Laboratory, NH No. 4, Faridabad (Haryana). From the record of the trial court, it is also revealed that one application was submitted on behalf of the accused on 7.9.1992 with a demand draft of Rs. 95/- having no. 295398 with a letter of request that the sample may be sent to the Central Laboratory for test. Since the trial court already ordered for sending the sample for test by Central Laboratory, therefore, the sample was sent to the Central Laboratory with the forwarding letter of the trial court dated 9.9.1992. It was done without any delay. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the Insecticide Inspector himself in his letter submitted before the trial court clearly mentioned that the sample has expiry date 17.10.1992 and the analysis of the sample after this expiry date will be of no consequence. The trial court also informed the Central Insecticides ' Laboratory that expiry date of sample is 17.10.1992, therefore, it is required to be tested before that date. Though as per court's letter dated 9.9.1992, it appears that sample and demand draft of Rs. 95/- were sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory but it was returned by the Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Agriculture and Cooperation), Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and storage with remarks that send the draft in the name of Accounts Officer of the above department. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner no. 4 was informed that fresh demand draft may be submitted. This direction was issued by the trial court to the petitioner no. 4 on 22,10.1992. By this time, the expiry date of the sample was already over on 17.10.1992. However, the petitioner submitted new demand draft as directed by the trial court. The trial court resend the draft drawn in proper name by order dated 24.10.1992.

(3.) The petitioners preferred a petition before this court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code which was registered as SB Criminal Mist. Petition No. 556/1993 wherein the petitioners prayed for quashing of the prosecution in pursuance of the complaint submitted on the basis of the report of State Pesticides Testing Laboratory dated 15.1.1992 on the ground that the petitioners were deprived of a defence which he could have taken under the provisions of Act of 1968 in the fact situation mentioned above. The petitioners' another contention was that, the sanction for prosecution granted by the State Government vide order dated 7.7.1992 is absolutely illegal and hence, can not be acted upon because of the reason that the sanction order has been passed mechanically and without application of mind and without examining the facts of the case. When the matter came up before the learned single judge of this court for consideration of Misc. Petition no. 556/ 1993, the learned single judge of this court was of the view that the matter involves certain important questions of law which are required to be answered by the Larger Bench, therefore, the matter was referred to the Division Bench. Before the Division Bench, the permission was sought by the petitioners to withdraw the said Misc. Petition No. 556/1993 with liberty to avail the remedy before the trial court at appropriate stage.