NORTHERN MINERAL LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2010] 8 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 07-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[201 OJ 8 S.C.R. 1 
NORTHERN MINERAL LTD. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 766 of 2003) 
JULY 07, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.] 
A 
Insecticides Act, 1968 - ss.24(3) and 24(4) - Scope and 
ambit of - Insecticide sample drawn and sent for analysis -
Report of the Insecticide Analyst - Right of accused to rebut C 
the conclusive nature of the evidence of Insecticide Analyst 
by notifying its intention to adduce evidence in controversion 
of the report before the Insecticide Inspector or before court 
where proceeding in respect of the samples is pending -
Held:· Mere notifying of intention to adduce evidence, in D 
controversion of the report of the Insecticide Analyst, confers 
on the accused the right and clothes the court the jurisdiction 
to send the sample for analysis by the Central Insecticides 
Laboratory and an accused is not required to demand in 
specific terms that the sample be sent for analysis to Central E 
Insecticides Laboratory - On facts, when the accused was 
served with Insecticide Analyst report, it notified its intention 
to adduce evidence in controversion of the report but its right 
was defeated as the sample was not sent for analysis to 
Central Insecticides Laboratory - Shelf life of the insecticide 
F 
had expired even prior to filing of the complaint in court, and 
for that reason no step was possible to be taken for its test 
and analysis by Central Insecticides Laboratory -
Valuable 
right of the accused having been defeated, allowing criminal 
prosecution against the accused to continue would be futile 
and abuse of the process of court - Accused discharged of G 
its criminal liability - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s.245. 
Insecticides Act, 1968 - Authorities concerned entrusted · 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 
A with the implementation of the provisions of the Act advised 
to act with promptitude and adhere to the time-schedule, so 
that innocent persons are not prosecuted and real culprits not 
left out. 
The Insecticide Inspector drew sample of insecticide 
B manufactured by appellant company from the shop of 
appellant's dealer and sent it to the Regional Laboratory. 
The Regional Laboratory reported that the sample did not 
conform to ISi specifications. Notice of the report was 
sent to the appellant. 
c 
D 
Pursuant to receipt of the report, appellant, in terms 
of s.24(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, intimated to the 
Insecticides Inspector its "intention to adduce evidence 
in controversion of the report", but no step was thereafter 
taken by the Insecticides Inspector. 
A complaint was subsequently filed against the 
appellant and its dealer under Section 29 of the 
Insecticides Act. However, meanwhile the shelf-life of the 
insecticide in question had expired. Appellant filed 
E application for discharge under Section 245 CrPC which 
was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The 
order was upheld by the High Court in Criminal Revision. 
F 
G 
In the instant appeal, the questions before the Court 
for consideration were: 
1) Whether by conveying its intention to lead 
evidence in controversion of the report, the appellant 
exercised its right to seek re-analysis of the sample from 
the Central Insecticides Laboratory, but was denied such 
right and; 
2) Whether inasmuch as the shelf life of the sample 
of insecticide expired before the complaint was filed 
against the appellant, continuing criminal prosecution 
against the appellant would be a futile exercise and 
abuse of the process of Court and the appellant ought 
H to be discharged. 
NORTHERN MINERAL LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
3 
ANR. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD:1.1. The Statute mandates disclosure of expiry 
date of the insecticide. Insecticides are substances 
specified in the Schedule to the Insecticides Act, 19n8 
and from perusal thereof, it is evident that many of 
substances with passage of time may lose its identity if B 
exposed or come into contact with other substance. 
Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that 
shelf- life of an insecticide shall have its bearing when 
it is tested or analysed in the laboratory. [Para 6] [10-E-
~ 
c 
1.2. From a plain reading of Section 24(3) of the 
Insecticides Act, 1968 it is evident that an accused, within 
28 days of the receipt of the copy of the report of the 
Insecticide Analyst, to avoid its evidentiary value is 
required to notify in writing to the Insecticide Inspector D 

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