S.S.NIJJAR,J - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the compliant No. 50-C dated 18.7.1994 (Annexure P-9) pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara and the proceedings consequential thereto.
(2.) ON 4.1.93, Insecticides Inspector, Kapurthala took a sample of 2-4D Sodium Salt 80% Batch No. 04 from the premises of M/s. New Janta Agricultural Store V. and P.O. Rehana Jattan, Tehsil Phagwara and Distt. Kapurthala. This insecticide was manufactured by petitioner No. 1 which is a company registered under the Companies Act. Petitioner No. 2 is an Officer of the Company. The date of manufacture of the sample was November 1991 and the date of expiry was October, 1993. The sample drawn by the Insecticides Inspector was sent by him to the Chief Agricultural Officer, Kapurthala. This was sent by the Chief Agricultural Officer for analysis to the Insecticides Laboratory, Bathinda. The Insecticides Laboratory gave its report on 1.2.1993 that the sample was misbranded. The attested copy of the analyst report was sent by the Chief Agricultural Officer to the petitioner No. 1 by letter dated 30.3.93. This was received by the petitioner No. 1 on 5.4.1993. On 18.4.93, petitioner No. 1 sent a reply in which it is stated that the report of the Insecticides Laboratory, Bathinda is totally incorrect. It is further stated that on receipt of the letter, the entire record has been checked and it has been found that the insecticide was infact never manufactured by petitioner No. 1. In the reply, it is also clearly stated as under : "...Inspite of the submissions made herein above, in case if you still decide to proceed further, in that circumstance, we would like to notify/express our intention of adducing the evidence in contravention of the report of Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Bathinda as sent by you with your letter referred above. This is without prejudice to our other rights and contentions." The Chief Agricultural officer sent a letter dated 21.6.1993 to the petitioner stating that the sample cannot be sent for re-analysis as it has already been submitted to the Court as per provision of 24(4) of the Act, 1968. Therefore, the petitioner No. 1 was directed to make an application for re-analysis of the sample in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara. The complaint was filed against the petitioner No. 1 on 18.7.1994. I have heard the counsel for parties.
(3.) I am of the considered opinion that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd. and others, 1999(4) RCR(Criminal) 540. After considering the entire law the Supreme Court has held as under : "11. Sub-section (1) of Section 30 which appears to be relevant only prescribes in effect that ignorance would be of no defence but that does not mean that if there are contravention of other mandatory provisions of the Act, the accused have no remedy. Procedure for testing the sample is prescribed and if it is contravened to the prejudice of the accused, he certainly has right to seek dismissal of the complaint. There cannot be two opinions about that. Then in order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested from Central Insecticides Laboratory, it is incumbent on the prosecution to file the complaint expeditiously so that the right of the accused is not lost. In the present case, by the time the respondents were asked to appear before the Court, expiry date of the Insecticides was already over and sending of sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory at that late stage would be of no consequence. This issue is no longer res integra. In the State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., JT 1996(10) SC 480, this Court in somewhat similar circumstances said that the procedure laid down under Section 24 of the Act deprived the accused to have sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and adduce evidence of the report so given in his defence. This Court stressed the need to lodge the complaint with utmost dispatch so that the accused may opt to avail the statutory defence. The Court held that the accused had been deprived of a valuable right statutorily available to him. On this view of the matter, the Court did not allow the criminal complaint to proceed against the accused. We have cases under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 involving the same question. In this connection reference be made to decisions of this Court in State of Haryana v. Brijlal Mittal and others, 1988(5) SCC 343, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, AIR 1967 SC 970, Chetumal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 1981(3) SCC 72 and Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Pawan Kumar Saraf and another, 1999(2) SCC 400, all under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 12. It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that the respondents in these appeals have been deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory under Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 24 report signed by the Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and shall be conclusive evidence against the 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 before which proceedings are pending that they intend to adduce evidence to controvert the report. In the present cases Insecticide Inspector was notified that the accused intended to adduce evidence to controvert the report. By the time the matter reached the Court, shelf life of the sample had already expired and no purpose would have been served informing the Court of such an intention. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was, therefore, not conclusive. A valuable right had been conferred on the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and in the circumstances of the case accused have been deprived of that right, thus, prejudicing them in their defence." From the facts narrated above, it becomes evident that in the present case also, by the time the matter reached the Court, the shelf life of the sample had already expired and no purpose would have been served by making a request for sending the second sample for re-examination.;