NORTHERN MINERALS LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 26. 6. 1991 Quality Control Inspector drew a sample of Phorate 10-G, Batch No. 2524, manufactured by M/s Northern Minerals Ltd. (petitioner No. 1) from M/s Om Seed Store, Purani Sabzi Mandi, Yamuna Nagar (petitioner No. 2 ). The date of manufacture of Phorate 10-G Batch No. 2524 was March, 1991 and the date of expiry of the shelf life was February, 1992. The sample was sent for analysis to Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Karnal. The Senior Analyst, State Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal vide report dated 10. 6. 1991 (Annexure P-2) found the sample misbranded. On 24. 9. 1991 two separate show cause notices were issued to the petitioners. A copy of one of the show cause notices were received on or about 29. 7. 1991 by them. Vide show cause notices, petitioners were called upon to explain as to why the sample of insecticide seized on 26. 6. 1991 from the business premises of M/s Om Seed Store, Purani Sabzi Mandi, Yamuna Nagar-petitioner No. 2 by the Quality Control Inspector was misbranded and why action be not taken against them under the Insecticides Act, 1968? Petitioner No. 1 gave reply Annexure P-4 to the show cause notice, requesting the Licensing Officer-cum-Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ambala that they were not satisfied with the analysis of the sample carried out by the Senior Analyst, Quality Control laboratory, Karnal and that the other sample be sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory for analysis under the provisions of section 24 (3) and (4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the rules framed thereunder and that they would be bearing expense for the re-analysis of the sample. Similar is the reply (Annexure P-4/a) to the show cause notice sent by M/s Om Seed Store (petitioner No. 2 ). The Licensing Officer-cum-Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ambala informed M/s Om Seed Store through letter-Annexure P-5 that the sample could be sent for re-analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory only by the Court. Through letter Annexure P-6 addressed by petitioner No. 1 to the Licencing Officer-cum-Deputy Director, Ambala, petitioner No. 1 reiterated that Phorate 10-g Batch No. 2524 manufactured by them is well known for its quality and efficacy in the State of Haryana and as, to date, there was no complaint regarding its quality and that permission be obtained from the Court so that the sample could be sent for re-analysis in accordance with the provisions of section 24 (3) and (4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the rules made thereunder. Petitioner No. 2 made an application Annexure P-7 dated 26. 9. 1991 to the Ilaqa magistrate, Jagadhri praying that the sample be sent for re-analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. The State of Haryana put in reply Annexure P-8 to this application and opposed the reanalysis of the sample by the Central Insecticides laboratory, saying that the sample had already been tested by the Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal which is well equipped and manned by qualified technical staff and is duly notified by the State Government under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and that the request for re-analysis of the sample from the Central Insecticides laboratory, is not maintainable. On these allegations, the petitioners have prayed for the quashing of complaint (Annexure P-10,) instituted on 24. 12. 1991 in the Court of Judicial magistrate, Jagadhri under section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the rules made thereunder for the violation of Section 3 (k) (i) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, urging that they have been deprived of their valuable right granted to them under Section 24 (3) of the Insecticides Act for no fault on their part and therefore the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint was instituted in the Court on 24. 12. 1991. The shelf life of the insecticide expired on February, 1992. Petitioner No. 2 was served on or about 15. 7. 1992 while petitioner No. 1 was served on or about 15. 6. 1996. No useful purpose would have been served if the request had been made to the Court after their service that sample be got re-analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory because shelf-life of the insecticide had expired much earlier in February, 1992.

(2.) RESPONDENT -State of Haryana has opposed the prayer for quashing of the complaint, urging that these pleas can well be taken before the Court at the time of frame of charge. The sample was analysed in the State Testing Laboratory, Karnal which is fully equipped for the proper testing of the sample.

(3.) SO far as factual position is concerned, that is not in dispute. The sample was taken on 26. 6. 1991. It was found misbranded by the Senior Analyst, State Quality Control Laboratory (Insecticides), Karnal vide report Annexure P-2. A show cause notice Annexure P-3 was given to petitioner No. 2 on 24. 7. 1991 calling upon them to show cause why action be not initiated against them under the Insecticides Act, 1968 when the sample of insecticide seized from them on 26. 6. 1991 had been found misbranded. Similar show cause notice was given to petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 in reply to the show cause notice requested the Licensing Officer-cum-Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ambala for re-analysis of the sample. Similar request was made by M/s Om Seed Store, (petitioner No. 2 ). The sample was not sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory by the Licensing Officer-cum-Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ambala despite the request by petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 respectively. The licensing Officer cum-Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ambala informed the petitioners that the sample could be sent for re-analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory only by the Court. On 26. 9. 1991 a request was made by petitioner No. 2 to the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate that sample be sent for re-analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory in the interest of justice. This request was opposed by respondent (Quality control Inspector) through reply Annexure P-8. It is thus clear that every effort was made by petitioners to have the sample reanalysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory.