Duty of insecticide inspector to institute complaint case forthwith under insecticides Act

 The Supreme Court in Northern Mineral Limited v. Union of
India & Another : (2010) 7 SCC 726 observed as under:
“24. Section 24(3) of the Act gives right to the accused
to rebut the conclusive nature of the evidence of
Insecticide Analyst by notifying its intention to adduce
evidence in controversion of the report before the
Insecticide Inspector or before Court where proceeding
in respect of the samples is pending. Further the Court
has been given power to send the sample for analysis
and test by the Central Insecticides Laboratory of its own
motion or at the request of the complainant or the
accused. 
25. No proceeding was pending before any Court,
when the accused was served with Insecticide Analyst
report, the intention was necessarily required to be
conveyed to the Insecticide Inspector, which was so done
by the appellant and in this background Insecticide
Inspector was obliged to institute complaint forthwith
and produce sample and request the court to send the
sample for analysis and test to the Central Insecticides
Laboratory. Appellant did whatever was possible for it.
Its right has been defeated by not sending the sample for
analysis and report to Central Insecticides Laboratory.
26. It may be mentioned herein that shelf life of the
insecticides had expired even prior to the filing of the
complaint. The position therefore which emerges is that
by sheer inaction the shelf life of the sample of
insecticides had expired and for that reason no step was
possible to be taken for its test and analysis by Central
Insecticides Laboratory. Valuable right of the appellant
having been defeated, we are of the opinion that
allowing this criminal prosecution against the appellant
to continue shall be futile and abuse of the process of
Court.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 Judgment delivered on: 13th August, 2015
 CRL.M.C. No.294/2015
RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA LTD

versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

Print Page

Whether prosecution under insecticides Act is liable to be quashed as complaint was filed after expiry of shelf-life period of insecticides?

 The above interpretation to Sec. 24
would be harmonious and in consonance to
the principles of natural justice. Applying the
aforesaid guidelines in the instant case, it
transpires that the Company-M/s. Bharat
Insecticides Ltd. and its Directors, who are
accused in the case, were not delivered a
copy of Insecticide Analyst's report, even
then in his reply dated 11.11.93 to the show
cause notice dated 27.10.93 of the
Insecticide Inspector the Manager (Quality11
Control) of the Company had requested the
Insecticide Inspector to get the second
sample of the insecticide re-tested in the
CIL, but no steps were taken by him in this
direction. The complaint in the case was filed
in court on 18.10.94 i.e. after the expiry of
shelf-life period of the Insecticide. The
cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate on 18.10.94 and process was
issued on the same day, with the result the
Company and its Directors had no occasion
to make a request to the Court to get
another sample tested in the CIL and as
such, they have been deprived of their
valuable right under sub-section (4) of Sec.
24 of the Act. The argument of the learned
Public Prosecutor that even after the expiry
of self-life period of the Insecticide, another
sample could have been sent to the CIL for
analysis can not be accepted. It is not
disputed that pesticide in the instant case
was effective for a maxium period of one
year from the date of its manufacture. It was
effective upto April 1994 while the complaint
itself was filed on 18
th October, 1994.”
In the case in hand, due to by the sheer inaction
and delay on the part of the prosecution agency in informing
the petitioner company about the report of the State Pesticide
Laboratory, the matter was delayed to a great extent and by
the time the petitioners appeared in the Court and filed the
application for sending the second sample for analysis to
C.I.L., the expiry date of sample had virtually arrived.
Ultimately the analysis could be carried out by the C.I.L. only
after the expiry of sample's shelf life. Thus, the valuable right
available to the accused for challenging the report of the State12
Pesticide Laboratory by getting the sample reanalysed by the
C.I.L. was defeated and frustrated because of the sheer
inaction of the prosecuting agency.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court
and by this Court in the aforesaid two cases, the prosecution
of the accused petitioners in this case is nothing but a gross
abuse of the process of the Court.
Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed.
The proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 66/1986 going on
in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat are
hereby quashed qua the petitioner. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
O R D E R
S.B.CRL. MISC. PETITION NO.1385/2006
M/s. Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Vs.
The Insecticide Inspector, Subject Specialist(Plant Protection)
Agri.& Anr.
 Date of order : 4th March, 2013
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Citation: 2014 (1) WLN 462 (Raj)

Print Page

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