Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Devanand and Basanagouda Mali Patil, were accused Nos. 1 and 2 in CC No. 688/2022 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Shahapur, for offences under Sections 3(k), 13, 17, and 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The case arose from a private complaint filed by the jurisdictional Agricultural Officer alleging that during an inspection, insecticide displayed for sale in the petitioners' retail shop, manufactured by accused No. 3, was found to be substandard. A sample was collected and forwarded to the laboratory, which confirmed it was misbranded. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the proceedings. The main contention was that the mandatory procedure under Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act was not complied with, as a portion of the sample was not given to the accused. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the complaint itself admitted that the sample was not provided to the accused. Relying on precedents, the court held that Section 24(3) is mandatory and non-compliance vitiates the prosecution. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and quashed the entire proceedings against the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Abuse of Process - The High Court quashed criminal proceedings where the mandatory procedure under Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 was not followed, as the sample was not provided to the accused, causing prejudice. (Paras 1-10)
B) Insecticides Act - Sampling Procedure - Section 24(3) - Mandatory Compliance - The provision requiring that a portion of the sample be given to the person from whom it is taken is mandatory, and non-compliance vitiates the prosecution. (Paras 5-10)
C) Insecticides Act - Offences - Sections 3(k), 13, 17, 29 - Substandard Insecticide - The complaint alleged sale of substandard insecticide, but the prosecution failed due to procedural lapse in sampling. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners for offences under the Insecticides Act, 1968 are liable to be quashed on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory sampling procedure under Section 24(3) of the Act?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire proceedings in CC No. 688/2022 against the petitioners.
Law Points
- Mandatory compliance with sampling procedure under Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act
- 1968
- Failure to provide sample to accused vitiates prosecution
- Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for abuse of process
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (02) 69
Sri Avinash A. Uplaonkar (for petitioners), Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil (HCGP for respondent)
Devanand S/o Bapugouda Patil and Basanagouda Mali Patil S/o Venkatrayagouda
The State of Karnataka, Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Officer, Raita Samparka Kendra, Shahapur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings in a private complaint for offences under the Insecticides Act, 1968.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (accused Nos. 1 and 2) sought quashing of the entire proceedings in CC No. 688/2022 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Shahapur.
Filing Reason
The complaint alleged that during inspection, insecticide displayed for sale in the petitioners' shop was found to be substandard, and a sample was collected and sent for analysis, which confirmed it was misbranded.
Previous Decisions
The trial court had taken cognizance of the offences and issued process against the petitioners.
Issues
Whether the mandatory sampling procedure under Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 was complied with?
Whether non-compliance with Section 24(3) vitiates the prosecution?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the mandatory procedure under Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act was not followed as a portion of the sample was not given to them, causing prejudice.
Respondent argued that the complaint was maintainable and the procedure was followed.
Ratio Decidendi
The provision under Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, requiring that a portion of the sample be given to the person from whom it is taken, is mandatory. Non-compliance with this mandatory procedure vitiates the prosecution, and the proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as an abuse of process of law.
Judgment Excerpts
In the present case, a private complaint was filed by the jurisdictional Agricultural Officer... alleging that during the course of inspection, it was found that the insecticide which were displayed for sale in the retail shop/showroom of accused Nos.1 and 2 manufactured by accused No.3 was found to be of substandard.
The complaint itself admits that the sample was not provided to the accused. Therefore, the mandatory procedure under Section 24(3) of the Act has not been complied with.
Non-compliance of the mandatory procedure under Section 24(3) of the Act vitiates the prosecution. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Procedural History
A private complaint was filed by the Agricultural Officer before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Shahapur, which was registered as PCR No. 60/2022 and later as CC No. 688/2022. The trial court took cognizance and issued process. The petitioners then filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, which was heard and allowed on 01.02.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Insecticides Act, 1968: 3(k), 13, 17, 29, 24(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
