THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.1302 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against judgment made in Crl.A.No.83 of 2000 dated 30.7.2004 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar confirming sentence passed in S.T.C.No.35 of 1994 dated 19.4.2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar. The petitioner-accused was charged with offence punishable under Section 29(1)(i) read with Section 29(1)(a) and Section 3-K(i) of Insecticides Act, 1968. The complainant is the State through Joint Director of Agriculture, Mahabubnagar. It is alleged in the complaint as follows: On 18.3.1992 the Insecticides Inspector and Deputy Director, Mahabubagar inspected the manufacturing premises of the petitioner firm at about 11.00 a.m. and drawn insecticides samples under a cover of panchanama duly taking precautions required thereunder and sent one of the sample to the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Senior Analyst) Insecticides Laboratory, Ananthapur, who after conducting necessary test, opined that the sample was misbranded as it contained only 0.87% W/W Gamma-Insomer as per ISI specification No.IS 561-1978, Gas Chromato- graphic method as against the guaranteed 1.3% of Gamm isomar. The accused also sent one of the sample to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Bombay for analysis and there also it was found to be not conforming to the relevant I.S. specifications. Thus, the petitioner-accused was charged with the offence referred above. For the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked and for the defence, none was examined and no documents were marked. The trial Court, on consideration of the matter, found the accused guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 29(1)(i) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, whereas being aggrieved by the said order, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.83 of 2000 on the file of Court of the V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Mahabubnagar and the appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court and hence, the present revision is filed. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the accused that P.W.2 clearly admitted that one Narayana Rao, Executing Director was present in the unit at the time of inspection, but he was not shown as the accused in the case and on the other hand, the accused who happened to be a Director of the unit was implicated in the case and absolutely there is no basis to say that he was incharge of the unit at the relevant point of time and therefore implicating him as the accused in the case is not tenable and further by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, a copy of the inspection report should have been given to the person from whom the sample is said to be taken, but there is no evidence to the effect that in fact that provision was complied with and therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the case against the accused and the Courts below failed to appreciate the matter properly. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon unreported judgment in M/s VELURI SIVARAMA SASTRY & SONS AND ANOTHERS v. THE STATE OF A.P., HYDERABAD (THE INSECTICIDES INSPECTOR, GUNTUR), (Crl.Rc.No.290 & 291 of 1980) and another unreported judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in DINESH KUMAR SHARMA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER (Crl.Misc.No.10898- M of 1991). The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition claiming that the prosecution placed good evidence and established the case against the accused. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are shown in order to uphold the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. I have gone through the record. There is no dispute that the accused was the Director of the petitioner’s manufacturing unit at the relevant point of time. It is clearly deposed by P.W.2 in his evidence that one Narayana Rao, Executive Director was present in the unit and in his presence only, necessary process took place. His evidence rules out that the accused was also present in the unit at the time of inspection and collecting necessary samples observing necessary formalities. There is also no basis to say that he was incharge of the unit one way or the other in order to fasten the liability in question against him. Further, there is also no evidence to the effect that the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Insecticides Act were complied with. In M/s VELURI SIVARAMA SASTRY & SONS, (1 supra) it is observed under similar circumstances that in view of Section 24(2) of the Act, a report of the Insecticides analysis should be delivered to a person from whom the sample was taken and there was no need to deliver the same from whom the sample was not taken and under Section 24(4) of the Act, the accused also could request the Magistrate concerned to send one of the samples produced before the Court under sub-section (6) of Section 22 of the Act for analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory and when the report was not served upon him, he lost the opportunity of doing so. Ultimately, the conviction recorded against the accused concerned was set aside on the basis of that ground and also on the basis of other grounds. Further, in DINESH KUMAR SHARMA (2 supra) it is observed under similar circumstances that there is no evidence to the effect that the accused concerned therein was present or was incharge of the firm or responsible for the conduct of business of the firm at the relevant point of time and therefore the charge against him for the offence punishable under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act is not tenable. Those two decisions are applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, the charge against the accused under Section 29(1)(i) read with Section 29(1)(a) and 3-K(i) of the Insecticides Act is not tenable here. The Courts below failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence the conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision is allowed and the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below are set aside. The fine paid by the petitioner-accused, if any, shall be returned to him. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 12.7.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.1302 of 2004 12.7.2011