bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 879 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 879 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 879 OF 2007 P.I. Industries Ltd. & ors. ... Petitioners v/s State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.Sachindra B. Shetye and K.K.Sardal for petitioners. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 2ND JULY, 2008 2ND JULY, 2008 2ND JULY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioners have invoked the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have sought directions of this Court to quash the Summary Criminal Case No.728 of 2005 pending before the J.M.F.C., Niphad, Dist. Nashik and the order passed by the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.93 of 2006. 2. The petitioners are manufacturers of insecticides. They have been accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 3(k)(i), 17(1)(a)(c)(d) and 18(1)(c) of the Insecticide Act, 1968. 2 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the sample which was seized and sent for analysis has not been analysed by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and thereby the right of the accused - the petitioners herein, has been violated. The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that under Section 24, once the accused contradicts the report of the analyst under Section 24(3), the sample seized must be sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory so that the accused has a chance of adducing evidence, contrary to the report of the insecticide analyst. 4. Admittedly, this has been done in the present case. In fact, the samples were drawn on 28.12.2004 and the petitioners requested the pathologist to send the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory for re-analysis on 23.2.2005. It appears that the request of the petitioners was rejected by the Court since no proceeding was pending. Ultimately, consent to prosecute the petitioners was obtained and the complaint was filed against the petitioners on 28.12.2005 i.e. one year after the samples were seized. The shelf life of the sample was for six months upto 13.6.2005. Admittedly, the sample was not analysed by the Central Insecticides Laboratory by that date and, therefore, in 3 my opinion, the prosecution launched against the petitioners cannot survive. The petitioners have been deprived of their right available under Section 24(3) of the Act. 5. Apart from this, there is a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v/s Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v/s Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v/s State State State of Rajasthan, reported in 2002 DGLS 436, of Rajasthan, reported in 2002 DGLS 436, of Rajasthan, reported in 2002 DGLS 436, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the provisions of Section 24 provide that the report of the insecticide analyst is final and conclusive unless the accused contradicts that report and indicates his intention to adduce evidence to the contrary. It is in these circumstances that the report from the Central Insecticides Laboratory must be obtained so that the rights of the accused are not defeated. If the shelf life of the sample of insecticides seized had expired before any analysis by the Central Insecticides Laboratory, then continuing with the criminal prosecution against the accused would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of law. 6. Thus, in the light of the observation of the Supreme Court in Gupta Chemicals Gupta Chemicals Gupta Chemicals (supra) and in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the shelf life of the insecticides has expired on 13.6.2005 and there is no 4 report from the Central Insecticides Laboratory, the prosecution against the petitioners cannot be sustained. 7. Summary Criminal Case No.728 of 2005 is quashed and set aside. 8. The order of the revisional Court in Criminal Revision Application No.93 of 2006 is also set aside. 9. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.