Whether prosecution under insecticide Act can be quashed on the ground that accused was not afforded opportunity of re-analysing second sample by Central Insecticide Laboratory?

 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed. The petitioner was not afforded opportunity of re-analysing the second sample by the Central Insecticide Laboratory. It is pertinent to mention that in reply dated 22.11.1990 to the show cause notice dated 25.10.1990, the petitioner has specifically made a request for sending the sample for re-analysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory. On summoning the petitioner by the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, he was released on bail and on the same day he has moved an application for re-analysis of the sample. The Court gave the direction to the Insecticide Inspector to produce the sample but the same was not produced. By the time the sample was produced, the shelf life of the sample had expired and thus a valuable right granted to the petitioner under the provisions of the Act has been taken away.

10. I am in full agreement with the second submission made by the learned counsel that it is nowhere mentioned in the complaint that the petitioner ever tampered with the seal or was not selling the insecticide in the same state from which it was purchased. From a perusal of the complaint, this fact does not find mention. In M/s. Delhi Agriculture Store, M/s. Smt. Chander Kanta, Bahadur Singh and M/s. Amar Khad Store (supra) it has been held that when the sample was taken from the sealed container and no averment is made in the complaint that the seal was tampered with or the petitioner did not comply with the conditions as mentioned in Section 30(3)of the Act, the complaint is liable to be quashed.1

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amrit Lal vs State Of Punjab on 22 December, 2000

Bench: N Khichi

Print Page

When prosecution under insecticides Act is liable to be quashed?

In Safex Chemicals India Limited v. State of Haryana, (supra), this Court has quashed complaint against the main dealer, who sold the misbranded pesticide to the sub dealer, from whom the sample was taken, on the ground that there was no averment in the complaint that the misbranded pesticide was not properly stored. It was held by this Court that when the insecticide was acquired from the licensed manufacturer in a sealed container by the main dealer and the same was properly stored and kept in the same condition, in which it was acquired, it will not be open for the State to file a complaint against such persons. Filing of such complaint would be an abuse of the process of the Court. This Court has consistently taken the view that when the complaint is lacking in definite averments regarding improper storing of the insecticide, selling of the insecticide in loose condition and the knowledge regarding selling of the misbranded insecticide and further when from the complaint it is clear that the sample was taken in sealed packed containers, then certainly the seller of the insecticides is entitled for the protection provided under Section 30(3) of the Act and in such circumstances, the complaint is liable to be quashed and continuation of such complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sahil Agrochemicals And Anr. vs State Of Punjab on 16 August, 2002

Bench: S K Mittal

Print Page