M/S. CHEMINOVA INDIA LTD. & ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 352 · Decided: 04-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NAVIN SINHA · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
352
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
M/S. CHEMINOVA INDIA LTD. & ANR.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.749 of 2021)
AUGUST 04, 2021
[NAVIN SINHA AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.469 – Commencement
of period of limitation – Complaint of misbranding – Samples drawn
from dealer on 10.02.2011 and sent to the Insecticide Testing
Laboratory on 17.02.2011; and the report of analysis was received
on 14.03.2011 – Appellant-manufacturer was served with show
cause notice – Request made on 15.04.2011 for reanalysis of second
sample – Second sample sent on 02.05.2011 and re-analysis report
was received on 09.12.2011 – Complaint filed on 25.03.2014 –
Whether complaint was time-barred – Held: The report of analysis
received from the Laboratory on 14.03.2011 itself indicated
misbranding – Thus period of limitation within meaning of s. 469
commenced from 14.03.2011 only – Complaint was time barred –
Limitation – Delay/latches – Insecticides Act, 1968 – ss. 3(k)(i),17,
18, 29 and 33.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellants are sought to be prosecuted on
the ground of misbranding of the insecticide, i.e., Trizophos 40%
E.C. It is the allegation in the complaint that upon analysis of the
sample, same was found to contain active ingredient to the extent
of 34.70% only as against the labelled declaration of 40%. Thus,
it is a case of ‘misbranding’ within the meaning of Section 3(k)(i)
of the Act and selling of such misbranded item is in violation of
Sections 17, 18, and 33 punishable under Section 29 of the Act.
From a reading of Section 29, it is clear that the maximum
punishment for such offence, if it is first offence, is imprisonment
for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which shall
not be less than ten thousand rupees which may extend to fifty
thousand rupees, or with both. For a second and subsequent
offence, the punishment is imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years or with fine which shall not be less than
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 352
352
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
353
fifteen thousand rupees which may extend to seventy-five
thousand rupees, or with both. Section 468 of Cr.PC prohibits
taking cognizance of an offence after the lapse of period of
limitation. As per sub-section (2)(c) thereof, the period of
limitation is three years, if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding
three years. Section 469 of Cr.PC deals with the ‘commencement
of the period of limitation’. As per the said provision, the period
of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall commence on the
date of offence or where the commission of the offence was not
known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police
officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge
of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier. [Para
9][357-C-H]
2. In the present case, it is not in dispute, the complainant
received the report of analysis on 14.03.2011 from the Insecticide
Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana and the complaint was lodged on
25.03.2014 which was beyond a period of three years from
14.03.2011. The only submission for the State was that further
report from the Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory was
received on 09.12.2011 which is the conclusive evidence of the
facts, as such, the complaint is within the period of limitation.
Such submission is not convincing. As per the procedure
prescribed under the Statute, i.e., Insecticide Act, 1968 and the
rules made thereunder, the Insecticide Testing Laboratory,
Ludhiana was the competent authority to which the sample was
sent on 17.02.2011, after drawing on 10.02.2011, and the report
of analysis was received on 14.03.2011, as such the said date is
said to be the crucial date for commencement of period of
limitation. By virtue of the said report received on 14.03.2011
which states that the active ingredient of the sample was only to
the extent 34.70% as against the labelled declaration of 40%, it
is clear that it is the date of offence allegedly committed by the
accused. Merely because a further request is made for sending
the sample to the Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, as
contemplated under Section 24(4) of the Act, which report was
received on 09.12.2011, receipt of such analysis report on
09.12.2011 cannot be the basis for commencement of limitation.
The report of analysis received from the Insecticide Testing
M/S. CHEMINOVA INDIA LTD. & AN

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.