Case: Gupta Chemicals Private Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan

(4) The factual backdrop of the case which is relevant for appreciating the contentions raised may be stated thus: M/s Gupta Chemicc.ls Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in manufacture of pesticides and insecticides including B.H.C. 10% dust, batch no.2 and phoratesG which are the materials in question in the present proceeding . On 31/10/1991, the insecticides inspector visited the shop of a dealer where these products were being sold. He collected samples of the materials for examination. In accordance with the procedure prescribed under Insecticides Act, 1968, the sample was divided into different parts of which one was given to the person from whom the sample was collected and another was sent to the state insecticides laboratory for analysis. It is relevant to state here that the expiry date of B.H.C 10% dust, batch no.2 was September, 1993 and for phoratesG batch no.6 the expiry date was February, 1993. The report submitted by the analyst was to the effect that the material did not conform to the prescribed standard and was, therefore,. The report was received by the inspector on 2/1/1992. The intimation of the receipt of the report was sent to the dealer on 10/1/1992 and to the appellants on 16/1/1992. On receipt of the intimation about the state analyst report the appellants sent intimation to the inspector expressing their intention to lead evidence against the report. The intimation was sent within the period prescribed under the Act. Long thereafter in July, 1992 the inspector took steps to obtain permission of the competent authority to launch criminal prosecution. Permission was granted 2 years thereafter in July 1994. The complaint was filed in court against the company and its managing director and directors, alleging commission of offence punishable under section 29 (1) (a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. By then thee of the insecticides in question had expired. Section 29 provides that whoever imports, manufactures, sells, stocks, or exhibits for sale, or distributes any insecticides deemed to bed undere (i) ore (iii) of section 3 (k), shall be punishable in the mannerprescribed(5) The appellants filed the application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the complaint and, the criminal proceedings instituted against them, inter alia, on the ground that on account of the inordinate delay in filing the complaint, they have been deprived of their valuable right to get the sample of the seized material examined by the central insecticides laboratory. The High Court without entering into merit of the case declined to interfere with the proceedings relying on the general principle that the court should be loath to interfere with criminal proceeding at the inception and should not ordinarily quash a criminal complaint and proceedings.

Reasoning: (12) From our perusal of the aforequoted provisions it is manifest that ordinarily in the absence of any material to the contrary, the report of the insecticides analyst will be accepted as final and conclusive of the material contained therewith. This is however subject to the right of the accused to have the sample examined by the central insecticides laboratory provided he communicates his intentions for the purpose within 28 days of the receipt of the copy of the report. It needs no emphasis that this rightvestedunder thestatutes valuable for the defence, particularly in a case where the allegations are that the material does not conform to theprescribedstandard. As noted earlier in the present case the appellants had intimated the insecticide inspector their intention to have the sample tested in the central insecticides laboratory within theprescribedperiod of 28 days of receipt of the copy of the state analyst report, yet no step was taken by the inspector either to send the sample to the central insecticides laboratory or to file the complaint in the court with promptitude in which case the appellants would have moved the magistrate for appropriate order for the purpose. The resultant position is that due to sheer inaction on the part of the inspector, it has not been possible for the appellants to have the sample examined by the central insecticides laboratory and in the meantime, thee of the sample of insecticide seized had expired and for that reason no further step could be taken for its examination. In the circumstances, we are of the view that continuing this criminal prosecution against the appellant will be a futile exercise and abuse of the process of court. The High Court was not right in dismissing the petitionfiledunder section 482 ofCode of Criminal Procedure, 1908