CRM No.23973 of 2012 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM No.23973 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:
2. 8.2013 M/s B.R.Agrotech Limited and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Saurav Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr.Arun Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.
**** SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaint No.130-II/ 16.2.2009 (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has, inter alia, submitted that the sample had been manufactured in November 2006 and its expiry date was October 2008.
Show cause notice was Devi Anita issued to petitioner No.1 regarding misbranding of the sample on 2013.08.12 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.23973 of 2012 (O&M”
13. 10.2008 (Annexure P-3).The complaint was filed on 16.2.2009.
By then the shelf life of the sample had already expired and hence, the right of the petitioners to seek re-analysis of the sample under Section 24 (4) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (the Act for short) stood frustrated.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
In the present case, the complainant had checked the premises of M/s T.Stanes and Company Ltd., Old Ludas Road, Opposite Swastik Gas Agency, Hisar on 19.6.2008 and had taken a Sample of insecticide Sulfosulfuron 75% WG (Synsulfo) bearing batch not KT000718-S, manufactured by M/s B.R.Agrotech Limited, Industrial Area, SIDCo.Kathua (J&K).The sample had been manufactured in November 2006 and the date of its expiry was October 2008.
The sample was taken in original packing and was sent for chemical analysis.
As per the report of the analyst dated 1.9.2008 (Annexure P-2).the sample was found misbranded i.e.66.25 % WG against the prescribed limit of 75% WG.
Notice was sent to petitioner No.1 after receipt of the report of the chemical analyst on 13.10.2008 (Annexure P-3).Complaint (Annexure P-1) was instituted on 16.2.2009.
Thus, by the time the complaint was filed, the shelf life of the insecticide had Devi Anita 2013.08.12 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.23973 of 2012 (O&M) 3 already expired.
Section 24 (4) of the Act reads as under:- Report of Insecticide Analyst: (4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory, where a person has under sub - section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of the Insecticide Analyst's report, the court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or of the accused, cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the magistrate under sub - section (6) of section 22 to be sent for test or analysis to the said laboratory, (which shall, within a period of thirty days, which shall make the test or analysis) and report in writing signed by, or under the authority of, the Director of the Central Insecticides Laboratory the result thereof, and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.”
Thus, as per the above provision a valuable right vests in the manufacturer to seek re-analysis of the sample from the Central Insecticide laboratory in case the report of the laboratory submitted earlier is adveRs.to him.
The stage at which the manufacturer can seek re-analysis of the sample is after the complaint is filed because the said request can be made by the manufacturer to the Court for re-analysis of the sample.
Devi Anita 2013.08.12 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.23973 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Since the shelf life of the sample had already expired at the time when the complaint was filed, petitioners could not avail of their right under Section 24 of the Act to get the sample re-analysed and thus, they have suffered a serious prejudice as their valuable right has been infringed.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
Complaint No.130- II/ 16.2.2009 (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising out of the said complaint are quashed.
(SABINA) August 02, 2013 JUDGE anita Devi Anita 2013.08.12 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh