INDOFIL INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2017] 7 S.C.R. 140 · Decided: 03-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 140 
INDOFIL INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2017) 
JULY03,2017 
(DIPAK MISRA AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Quashing of 
proceedings - Complaint under Insecticides Act - Report of the 
Central Insecticides Laboratory (CIL) obtained before filing of the 
complaint/pursuant to the direction given by the concerned 
Magistrate and made part of record of the criminal prosecution -
Appellant sought to quash proceedings on the ground that spare 
sample was sent for analysis to Central Insecticides Laboratory 
(CIL) without institution of any proceedings - High Court refused 
D 
to quash the proceedings - Held: The purport of s.24(4) is that the 
report of the CIL shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated 
therein - Sub-sec. (4) of s.24 opens with the words, "Unless the 
sample has already been tested or analysed in the CIL " - If the 
complaint is filed on the basis of the report of the CIL, then the 
E question of exercising the right u/s.24(4) does not endure to the 
accused - Therefore, in cases where such report is already obtained 
or available, the criminal prosecution must proceed on that basis -
Insecticide Inspector has the option either to send the third sample 
on the request made by the person from whom it was collected to the 
CIL for testing or analysis or to launch a criminal prosecution and 
F 
submit the third sample in the concerned Court well before the expiry 
of shelf life of the Insecticide to enable the accused named in the 
complaint to ask for testing or analysis thereof in the CIL-Therejore, 
High Court did not err in dismissing the petition to quash the criminal 
proceedings pending against the appellants in respect of misbranded 
G insecticide - Insecticides Act, 1968 - ss.22(5), 24. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. As per sub-section (5) of Section 22 of Insecticide 
Act, if the Insecticide Inspector decides to take a sample of an 
insecticide for the purpose of test or analysis, he is obliged to 
140 
INDOFIL INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
141 
intimate such purpose in writing in the prescribed form to the A 
person from whom he takes it and, in the presence of such person 
unless he wilfully absents himself, he shall then divide the sample 
into three portions and effectively seal and suitably mark the same 
and permit such person to add his own seal and mark to all or any 
of the portions so sealed and marked. After that, the Insecticide B 
Inspector is expected to restore one- portion of a sample so 
di"ided or one container as the case may be, to the person from 
whom he takes it and retain the remainder and deal with same in 
the manner prescribed in sub-section (6) of Section 22. Out of 
the remainder, one portion or container is required to be sent for 
Insecticide Analyst Test or Analysis. The second portion is 
C 
required to be produced before the Court where the proceedings 
if any are instituted in relation to the said insecticide. Before the 
. proceedings are instituted, the Insecticide Inspector, in terms of 
Section 24, is obliged to obtain the report of the Insecticide . 
Analyst. The Analyst is required to deliver the report to the D 
Insecticide Inspector within the prescribed time (30 days). Upon 
receipt of the said report, the Insecticide Inspector is then 
required to issue show cause to the person from whom the sample 
was taken and retain the second copy of the report for use in any 
prosecution in respect of the samples. Waras 11, 12][153-G-H; 
154-A-D] 
E 
2. A bare reading of sub-se.ction (3) shows that the first 
part declares that the report signed by the Insecticide Analyst 
shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and it shall be 
conclusive, unless the "person from whom" the sample was taken 
exercises his right by notifying in writing within the specified 
F 
time that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of that 
report. Thus, the second part of this provision gives a right to 
the person from whom the sample was collected to raise an 
objection. Once the person from whom the sample was taken 
exercises that right in terms of sub-section (4), the conclusiveness· 
of the report of the Insecticide Analyst (State Analyst) referred G 
to in the first part of the same provision cannot be used against 
such person. These. provisions are in the nature of rules of 
evidence. Further, if the criminal complaint is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.