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
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)
