M/S. NORTHERN MINERALS LTD. & ORS. versus RAJASTHAN GOVT. & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 622 · Decided: 28-04-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
(2016] 2 S.C.R. 622 
MIS. NORTHERN MINERALS LTD. & ORS. 
v. 
RAJASTHAN GOVT. & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. I 034 of2005) 
APRIL 28, 2016 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND C.NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Insecticide Act, 1968 - s. 24(3), (4) - Report of Insecticide 
Analyst - Re-analysis of the second sample drawn by the Insecticide 
Inspector - Claim for - On facts, seizure of sample of insecticide 
manufactured by the appellant, from a shop - Shelf life of the said 
insecticide to expire in 10 months - On analysis said sa111ple found 
to be 111isbranded - Issuance of show cause notice to appellant -
Appellants indicated intention to adduce evidence to controvert the 
report of Insecticide Analyst from the State Laboratory - Complaint 
D 
filed against appellant by Inspector and Magistrate taking 
cognizance - Appellant seeking quashing of the order of 
cognizance - High Court dis111issed the petition - On appeal, held: 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Insofar as the person from whom the sample was taken, the right to 
raise an objection is circumscribed by requiring him to indicate his 
intention to do so within 28 days of the receipt of the copy of the 
report - However no limitation of time placed on the complainant 
and/or the other accused proceeded against - On facts, the vital 
right vested in the appellants to get the sample re-tested (from the 
Central Insecticides Laboratory), to controvert the report of analysis 
of the sample obtained by the Insecticide Inspector, stood frustrated 
-Appellants lost the right to disprove their guilt for no fault of their 
own, thus, cannot be proceeded against - Order passed by the High 
Court set aside and proceedings initiated against the appellants 
based on the cognizance taken by the Magistrate quashed. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Reading harpioniously, Section 24(3) and 24(4) 
of the Insecticide Act, 1968, it is concluded that insofar as the 
person. from whom the sample was taken, the right to raise an· 
objection is circumscribed by requiring him to indicate his 
intention to do so within 28 days of the receipt of the copy of the 
622 
M/S. NORTHERN MINERALS LTD v. RAJASTHAN 
623 
GOVT. 
report. There is however no such limitation of time placed by the 
legislature on the complainant and/or the other accused 
proceeded against. In view thereof, insofar as the instant appeal 
is concerned, vital right vested in the appellants/accused ·to get 
the sample re-tested (from the Central Insecticides Laboratory), 
to controvert the report of analysis of the sample obtained by the 
Insecticide Inspector, stood frustrated. The appellants have lost 
the right to disprove their guilt. The appellants cannot be 
proceeded against, when they have, for no fault of their own, lost 
·a vital right of defence. Under sub-Section (4) of Section 24 of 
the Act; an accused other than a person from whom the sampl~. is 
taken, also has a right to adduce evidence in controversion of 
the Insecticide Analyst's Report, and in case the accused avail of 
the above right under sub-Section (4) of Section 24, he mnst bear 
the expenses of the test or analysis, to be made by the Central 
Insecticides Laboratory (under sub-Section 5 of Section 24). [Para 
12] (632-H; 633-A-D] 
1.2 The impngned order passed by the High· Court is set 
aside. The proceedings initiated against the appellants based on 
the cognizance taken by the Additional Civil Judge is quashed. 
I~ara 1.}l J633-E] 
2.1 As regards Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2006, on the date 
when cognizance was taken on 04.02.1995 by the Magistrate the 
sample had already expired in June, 1994. In view thereof, the 
instant appeal is allowed in the same terms as in Mis Northern 
Minerals Ltd. Case (Crl Appeal No.1034 of 2005) decided on 
28.04.2016. (Para 15) (633-F-G) 
Northern Mineral Limited vs. Union of India (2010) 7 
sec 726 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(2010)7 sec 726 
.. relied on 
Paras 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1034 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.2004 of the High Court 
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 250 
of2001. 
, 
A 
.B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
624 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
WITH 
Crl. A. No. 61 of2006. 
Arun Nehra, Ms. Akanksha Kaushik, Shrey R. Dambhare, Ms. 
Shobha Advs. for the Appellants. 
S. S. Shamshery, AAG, Amit Sharma, Prateek Yadav, Ms. Anu 
Dixit Kaushik, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Milind Kumar Advs. with him for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of th

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