1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 57331-M of 2006 Date of Decision: 1.5.2008 *** M/s Agrevo India Ltd. & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana. .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners are seeking quashing of criminal complaint dated 16.3.2001 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat titled as State of Haryana Vs. Yayavarn Nageshwara Parsad and Ors. and also the summoning order dated 20.3.2001 passed therein whereby the petitioners along with one A.K. Prem Nath have been summoned to face trial under Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, in short). The brief facts of the case are that the impugned complaint was filed by Assistant Plant Protection Officer-respondent complaining commission of an offence under Section 17(1)(a) and 29(1)(a) of the Act with the allegations that on 26.6.2000, premises of one firm M/s Aneja Traders were inspected and sample of Endsolphan 35% EC, manufactured by Agrevo India Limited-petitioner No.1 with manufacturing date 4/99 and expiry dated March 2001, was drawn. One part of the sample was sent to Senior Analyst Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal and the same was found misbranded. After obtaining necessary sanction from the Government for prosecution of persons instrumental in manufacturing and distribution of misbranded insecticide, the impugned complaint was filed against the 2 petitioners and one A.K. Prem Nath. The trial court vide order dated 20.3.2001 summoned the petitioners and one A.K. Prem Nath to face trial under Section 29(1)(a) of the Act. Petitioner No.1 is the manufacturer of insecticide in question while petitioner No.2 is quality control Manager of the said firm. The petitioners have sought quashing of the impugned complaint as also the summoning order on the ground that the manufacturing date of the sample of insecticide which was allegedly found misbranded was 4/99 and its expiry date was March 2001; the sample was taken on 26.6.2000 while the complaint was filed in the court on 16.3.2001 and the summoning order was passed against them on 20.3.2001 asking them to appear before the court on 5.6.2001 i.e. after the period when the shelf life of the insecticide in question was expired and thus, the petitioners were deprived of their valuable right to get second part of the sample re- tested, as provided under Section 24(3) and (4) of the Act. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, the action of institution of complaint after the sample found misbranded has been justified. It has further been averred that the petitioners have wrongly mentioned regarding the Isoroturon whereas report of analyst is regarding the misbranding of Endosulphan and not Isoproturon. Thus, dismissal of petition has been sought. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the paper-book carefully. As to how the report of the Insecticide Analyst is to be considered, reference may be made to Section 24 of the Act which is as under:- “24. Report of Insecticide Analyst-(1) The Insecticide Analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis under sub-section(6) of Section 22, shall within a period of sixty days, deliver to the Insecticide Inspector submitted 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 persons from whom 3 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 Insecticide Laboratory, where a person has under sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of the Insecticides 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-section (6) of section 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, the Director of the Central Insecticide Laboratory the result thereof, and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. Perusal of the above said provisions would reveal that there are two rights available with the concerned person. He may request after notice for the second sample to be tested or may request the Court for the said sample to be sent for re-analysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, which he has a definite legal right under Section 24 of the Act ibid. This is a valuable right and for that complaints should be filed at the earliest. In the case of Ravi 4 Kant Vs. State of Punjab, 1996(3) Recent CR 714, the complaint was filed after the expiry of the shelf life, the proceedings were quashing because a valuable right of the said accused/ petitioner had been lost. The Supreme Court had also the occasion to observe in this direction in the case of State of Punjab Vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., 1996 (10) JT SC 480, wherein under somewhat similar circumstances it was held that the procedure laid down under Section 24 of the Act deprived the accused to have sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and adduce evidence of the report so given in his defence and laid a stress to lodge the complaint with utmost dispatch so that the accused may opt to avail the statutory defence. It was also held that the accused had been deprived of his valuable right statutorily available to him. In this view of the matter, the Court did not allow the criminal complaint to proceed against the accused. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the shelf life of sample of the insecticide was having expiry date March 2001 and the complaint was instituted on 20.3.2001, calling upon the petitioners to appear before the Court was issued for 5.6.2001. In other words, by the time the matter reached the Court, shelf life of the sample had already expired and no purpose would have been served informing the court of such an intention. Whereas in order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested from Central Insecticide Laboratory, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to file the complaint expeditiously so that the right of the accused is not lost. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was, therefore, not conclusive. A valuable right had been conferred on the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and in the circumstances of the case accused have been deprived of that right, thus, prejudicing them in their defence. The controversy in question has already been settled in favour of the petitioners in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd. 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 540, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- “... that the respondents in these appeals have been deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory under sub- 5 section (4) of Section 24 of the Act. Under sub-section (3) of Section 24 report signed by the Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and shall be conclusive evidence against the accused only if the accused do not, within 28 days of the receipt of the report, notify in writing to the Insecticides Inspector or the Court before the which proceedings are pending that they intend to adduce evidence to controvert the report. In the present case Insecticide Inspector was notified that the accused intended to adduce evidence to controvert the report. By the time the matter reached the court, shelf life of the sample had already expired and no purpose would have been served informing the court of such an intention. The report of the Insecticide Analayst was, therefore, not conclusive. A valuable right had been conferred on the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and in the circumstances of the case accused have been deprived of that right, thus, prejudicing them in their defence.” In view of discussion above, the petition is accordingly accepted and the impugned complaint and subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 1,2008 Jiten