STATE OF HARYANA versus UNIQUE FARMAID (P.) LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 451 · Decided: 07-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF HARYANA 
A 
v. 
UNIQUE FARMAID (P.) LTD. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 7, 1999 
(D.P. WADHWA AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.) 
B 
Insecticides Act, 1968: Ss. 24, 30, 21, 22, 29(1)(a), 3(k)(i), 17 and 18. 
Insecticide Inspector-Collecting samples of insecticide-Quality con-
trol laborat01y analysis report-Samples misbranded-Notices to accused C 
person~Accused fi1111 notifying its intention to adduce evidence to colltravert 
the ;eport-Request for getting the samples 1-e-analysed from Central Insec-
ticides Laboratory ( CIL }-insecticide Inspector without adve1ting to the said 
request, filling criminal complaint-Shelf life of insecticide expiring by the 
time accused were summoned before the Cowt-Right to get the samples 
re-analysed from Central Insecticide Laboratory lost-High Court quashing D 
the criniinal complaint holding that it would be an abuse of process of court 
if the prosecution against the accused were continue~Validity of-Held, 
accused were deprived of their valuable right to get the samples tested from 
CIL-High Court justified in quashing the criminal contempt. 
Shelf Zif e of samples-Relevancy of-Act not providing any expi1y 
date-Analyst report submission f omi mentioning date of manufacture and 
date of expiry-Effect of-Held, shelf life of samples relevant. 
Insecticide Inspector_ collected samples. of insecticide froni a shop 
preinises and sent it to the Quality Control Laboratory for testing. The 
analysis report of the Quality Control Laboratory stated that the said 
samples were misbranded. Consequently, notices were issued to the shop· 
keeper and the manufacturer firm. The manufacturer firm denying the 
allegations, notified its intention to adduce evidence and requested for 
sending the samples to Central Insecticide Laboratory for re-analysis. 
However, the Insecticide Inspector without adverting to the said request 
filed criminal complaint against the accused persons. On challenge, High 
Court quashed the said criminal complaint holding that the accused were 
deprived of their valuable right under S.24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 
and it would be an abuse of the process of court if the prosecution was 
continued. Hence, the present appeals. 
451 
E 
F 
G 
H 
452 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
On behalf of the appellate-State it was contended that the Insec-
ticide Inspector was not competent to send the sample for re-testing to 
the Central Insecticides Laboratory and that request for re-testing should 
have been made to the Court concerned; no other defence than prescribed 
under Section 30 of the Act could be allowed to be raised in the prosecu-
B tion filed under the Act; the shelf life of the sample was not relevant as 
the Act does not prescribe any expiry date. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Respondent-accused were deprived of their valuable 
C right to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory 
under S.24(2) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. Thus, High Court was justified 
in quashing the criminal complaint holding that it will be an abuse of the 
process of court if the prosecution is continued against the accused 
persons. [ 460-D-E] 
D 
1.2. Procedure for testing the sample from Central Insecticide 
Laboratory is prescribed under the Act and if it is contravened to the 
prejudice of the accused, he certainly has right to seek dismissal of the 
complaint. Under sub-section (3) of Section 24, report signed by the 
Insecticide analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and shall 
E be conclusive against Uie accused only if the accused do not, within 28 
days of the receipt of the report, notify in writing to the Insecticides 
Inspector or the Court befm·e which proceedings are pending that they 
intend to adduce evidence to controvert the report. The report of the 
Insecticide Analyst was, therefore, not conclusive. In order to safeguard 
the right of the accused to have the sample tested from Central Insec· 
F ticides Laboratory, it is incumbent on the prosecution to file the complaint 
expeditiously so that the right of the accused is not lost. In the instant 
case, by the time the remondents were asked to appear before the Court, 
expiry date of the insecticide was already over and sending of sample to 
the Central Insecticides Laboratory at that late stage would be of no 
G consequence. [459-C; 460-A-D] 
The State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., JT 
(1996) 10 SC 480, relied on. 
State of Haryana v. 

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