Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a criminal prosecution initiated against National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., a manufacturer of the insecticide Monocil, under the Insecticides Act, 1968. An Insecticide Inspector visited the factory on 18 August 1988 and took two samples of Monocil from batch No. 0319, manufactured in March 1988, which was exposed for sale in August 1989. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst, whose report dated 12 October 1988 stated that the sample contained 33.02% E.C. against the specified 36%, and therefore opined that it was adulterated. A show cause notice was issued on 21 October 1988, and the respondent replied on 7 November 1988, requesting that the second sample be sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory to enable them to adduce evidence in controversion of the allegations. This request was not complied with. A complaint was filed on 25 March 1989 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. The respondent challenged the complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed the proceedings on the grounds that there was delay in action, the sample in custody was not sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, and the respondent was deprived of a valuable defence. The State of Punjab appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court observed that while it was not prima facie impressed with the High Court's reasoning, a conjoint reading of Sections 21, 22 and 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 led to the conclusion that the quashing of the complaint was correct. The Court examined the statutory scheme: Section 22(5) required the Insecticide Inspector to divide the sample into three portions, seal them, and permit the person to add his own seal; Section 22(6) required one portion to be restored to the person, one to be sent to the Insecticide Analyst, and one to be produced before the court. Section 24(3) made the Insecticide Analyst's report conclusive unless the person notified within twenty-eight days of intention to adduce contrary evidence. Section 24(4) allowed the court to send the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory for analysis, whose report would be conclusive. The Court found that in the present case, the appellant did not follow the statutory procedure. The appellant did not give the third sample to the respondent, and as a result the respondent was deprived of the statutory opportunity to have the sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory. The Court also noted that although the respondent did not avail the remedy of a CIL report on its own, the complaint should have been lodged with utmost dispatch so that the accused could opt to avail the statutory defence. The delay and non-compliance rendered further proceedings fruitless. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the quashing of the complaint, though for different reasons.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Complaint - Section 482 CrPC - Insecticides Act, 1968 - High Court quashed prosecution for adulterated insecticide due to delay and failure to send sample to Central Insecticides Laboratory; Supreme Court upheld quashing though for different reasons, finding non-compliance with mandatory sampling procedure deprived accused of statutory defence - Held that proceedings were rightly quashed (Paras 1-4). B) Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sampling Procedure - Sections 22(5) and (6) - Insecticide Inspector must divide sample into three portions, seal, give one to accused, send one to analyst, produce one to court; failure to give third sample and failure to send second sample to Central Insecticides Laboratory violated mandatory procedure and deprived accused of right to challenge analyst's report - Held that non-compliance vitiated proceedings (Paras 2-3). C) Insecticides Act, 1968 - Evidentiary Value of Analyst's Report - Sections 24(3) and (4) - Analyst's report is conclusive unless accused notifies intention to adduce contrary evidence within 28 days; accused then has right to have sample tested by Central Insecticides Laboratory, whose report is conclusive - Held that accused was deprived of valuable statutory defence because complaint was delayed and sample was not preserved or produced (Paras 3-4). D) Criminal Procedure - Delay in Lodging Complaint - Insecticides Act, 1968 - Complaint should be lodged with utmost dispatch to enable accused to avail statutory defence; delay in prosecution coupled with non-compliance with sampling procedure rendered further proceedings fruitless - Held that appeal dismissed (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal complaint against the respondent for sale of adulterated insecticide due to non-compliance with Sections 22 and 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, particularly the deprivation of the respondent's statutory right to have the sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; Supreme Court upheld High Court's quashing of complaint though for different reasons, holding non-compliance with Sections 22(5), (6) and 24(4) of Insecticides Act, 1968 deprived respondent of statutory defence, making further proceedings fruitless.
Law Points
- Insecticide Inspector must divide sample into three portions
- seal them
- give one portion to the person from whom taken
- send one to Insecticide Analyst
- and produce one to the court as per Section 22(5) and (6) of the Insecticides Act
- 1968. Report of Insecticide Analyst is conclusive evidence unless the accused notifies intention to adduce contrary evidence within 28 days under Section 24(3). Court may send sample to Central Insecticides Laboratory under Section 24(4)
- and its report is conclusive. Complaint should be lodged with utmost dispatch to allow accused to exercise statutory defence. Failure to provide third sample and to send sample to Central Insecticides Laboratory deprives accused of valuable statutory right and vitiates prosecution.
