Case Note & Summary
The applicants, M/s. Rallis India Limited and its factory manager, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sillod dated 28 June 2002, which refused to drop the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 479/1993. The complaint was filed under Sections 29(1)(a) and 18(1)(c) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, alleging that a sample of insecticide (Dimethyl 30% H.C.) collected on 12 March 1992 was misbranded. The Insecticide Analyst's report dated 8 May 1992 indicated the sample had a higher percentage than prescribed. The complaint was filed in court on 28 June 2002, more than ten years after the sample collection. The applicants argued that the delay in filing the complaint deprived them of their right under Section 24(3) of the Act to have the second sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory. The court agreed, noting that the delay was inordinate and prejudiced the accused. The court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that the right to second sample testing is a valuable right and its loss due to delay warrants quashing.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC - Delay in filing complaint under Insecticides Act, 1968 - The court considered whether the delay in filing the complaint, which resulted in the accused losing the right to get the second sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory under Section 24(3) of the Act, justifies quashing of the proceedings. Held that the delay was inordinate and prejudiced the accused, and thus the proceedings were quashed. (Paras 1-5)
B) Insecticides Act - Right to Second Sample Testing - Section 24(3) - The right of the accused under Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, to have the second sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory is a valuable right. Delay in filing the complaint that renders this right nugatory is a ground for quashing the proceedings. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay in filing the complaint under the Insecticides Act, 1968, which deprived the accused of the right to have the second sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory under Section 24(3), warrants quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and quashed the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 479/1993 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sillod.
Law Points
- Delay in filing complaint under Insecticides Act
- 1968
- Section 24(3) right to second sample testing
- Section 482 CrPC quashing
- Section 29(1)(a) and 18(1)(c) Insecticides Act
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (04) 72
Criminal Application No. 1145 of 2005
B.S. Bawiskar (holding for V.D. Sonawane) for applicants; R.V. Dasalkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1
M/s. Rallis India Limited and L. Shankar Raman
The State of Maharashtra and Insecticide Inspector
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application under Section 482 CrPC and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to challenge the order refusing to drop proceedings and to quash the criminal case under the Insecticides Act.
Remedy Sought
The applicants sought quashing of the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 479/1993 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sillod.
Filing Reason
The applicants challenged the order dated 28-6-2002 of the Judicial Magistrate refusing to drop the proceedings, and the dismissal of Criminal Revision No. 151/2002, on the ground that the complaint was filed late, depriving them of the right to get the second sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory under Section 24(3) of the Act.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sillod refused to drop the proceedings on 28-6-2002. The Criminal Revision No. 151/2002 filed against that order was dismissed.
Issues
Whether the delay in filing the complaint under the Insecticides Act, 1968, which deprived the accused of the right to have the second sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory under Section 24(3), warrants quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicants argued that the complaint was filed late, and due to the delay, they lost the right under Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act to get the second sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory.
The respondents opposed the application, but the court found the delay inordinate and prejudicial.
Ratio Decidendi
The right of the accused under Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, to have the second sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory is a valuable right. Inordinate delay in filing the complaint that renders this right nugatory is a ground for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Judgment Excerpts
Only one ground is raised that in view of late filing of the complaint in the Court, the petitioner accused has lost the right given under section 24(3) of the Act to get second sample tested through the Central Insecticides Laboratory.
The complaint is filed for offence punishable under sections 29(1)(a), 18(1)(c) of the Act.
Procedural History
The Insecticide Inspector collected a sample on 12-3-1992. The analyst report dated 8-5-1992 found the sample misbranded. The complaint was filed in court on 28-6-2002. The Judicial Magistrate refused to drop proceedings on 28-6-2002. Criminal Revision No. 151/2002 was dismissed. The applicants then filed Criminal Application No. 1145 of 2005 under Section 482 CrPC and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
- Insecticides Act, 1968: 29(1)(a), 18(1)(c), 24(3), 3(k)(i)
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
