Bombay High Court Allows Quashing of Prosecution Against Manufacturer in Insecticides Act Case Due to Non-Compliance with Section 24. Mandatory Thirty-Day Period for Analyst Report Not Followed, Rendering Prosecution Invalid.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 59
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicant, M/s Kilpest India Limited, a company based in Bhopal, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking quashing of STC No. 5829/2002 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nilanga. The proceedings were initiated on a complaint filed by the Insecticide Inspector, Malikarjun Vyankatrao Karadkhelkar, for alleged offences under Sections 3(k)(i), 17(i)(a), 18(1)(c) read with 29(i)(a) and 29(3)(i) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The applicant contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 24 of the Act were not complied with, as the Insecticide Analyst failed to deliver the report within the prescribed period of thirty days. The court, after hearing the learned Senior Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and the learned A.P.P. for the State, examined Section 24 of the Act, which requires the Insecticide Analyst to deliver a signed report in duplicate to the Insecticide Inspector within thirty days of receiving the sample. The court noted that the provision uses the word 'shall', indicating it is mandatory. Since the report was not delivered within the stipulated time, the court held that the prosecution could not be continued. Consequently, the court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings in STC No. 5829/2002.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Insecticides Act, 1968, Section 24 - Mandatory Compliance - The applicant company sought quashing of STC No. 5829/2002 on the ground that the Insecticide Analyst's report was not delivered within the mandatory period of thirty days as required under Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The court held that Section 24 is mandatory and non-compliance renders the prosecution invalid. The proceedings were quashed. (Paras 1-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the prosecution under the Insecticides Act, 1968 can be sustained when the mandatory requirement of Section 24 of the Act, requiring the Insecticide Analyst to deliver the report within thirty days, is not complied with.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings in STC No. 5829/2002 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nilanga.

Law Points

  • Mandatory compliance of Section 24 of Insecticides Act
  • 1968
  • Report of Insecticide Analyst must be delivered within thirty days
  • Failure to comply renders prosecution invalid
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (12) 1

Criminal Application No. 971 of 2004

2016-12-14

Z.A. Haq

None for Applicant, Mr. K.S. Hoke Patil for Respondent 1, Mr. V.D. Hon for Respondent 2

M/s Kilpest India Limited

The State of Maharashtra, Malikarjun Vyankatrao Karadkhelkar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal proceedings under the Insecticides Act, 1968.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of STC No. 5829/2002 initiated on the complaint of the Insecticide Inspector.

Filing Reason

Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 regarding delivery of analyst report within thirty days.

Issues

Whether the prosecution under the Insecticides Act, 1968 can be sustained when the mandatory requirement of Section 24 of the Act is not complied with?

Submissions/Arguments

The applicant contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 were not complied with, as the Insecticide Analyst did not deliver the report within thirty days. The respondent argued in support of the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 is mandatory and requires the Insecticide Analyst to deliver the report within thirty days. Non-compliance renders the prosecution invalid.

Judgment Excerpts

The contention on behalf of the applicant is that the mandatory provisions of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act are not complied with and, therefore, the prosecution can not be continued. Section 24 of the Insecticides Act reads as under : 'Report of Insecticide Analyst - (1) The Insecticide Analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis under sub-section (6) of section 22, shall, within a period of [thirty] days, deliver to the Insecticide Inspector submitting it a signed report in duplicate in the prescribed form.'

Procedural History

The applicant filed Criminal Application No. 971 of 2004 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking quashing of STC No. 5829/2002 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nilanga. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 14th December 2016.

Acts & Sections

  • Insecticides Act, 1968: 3(k)(i), 17(i)(a), 18(1)(c), 29(i)(a), 29(3)(i), 24
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Quashing of Prosecution Against Manufacturer in Insecticides Act Case Due to Non-Compliance with Section 24. Mandatory Thirty-Day Period for Analyst Report Not Followed, Rendering Prosecution Invalid.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Husband and Wife for Murder Based on Circumstantial Evidence. Property Dispute Motive and Last Seen Theory Sufficient to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC.