GARG, J. - (1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the petitioners-Manufactures, who are accused No. 3 and 4 in the original complaint, which the prayer that the proceedings of criminal case No. 162/87 State vs. M/s. Thakar Das Rajendra Kumar & Ors. for the offence under section 2, 18/29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1968') pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anoopgarh (Sri Ganganagar) be quashed.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances:- On 18. 4. 1987, a complaint was filed by the Insecticide Insepctor and District Agriculture Office, Rajasthan Canal Project, Anoopgarh (Sri Ganganagar) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anoopgarh (Sri Ganganagar) against the present petitioners, who are Manufactures and respondents No. 2 M/s. Thakar Das Rajendra Kumar, Vijainagar (Sri Ganganagar) and its proprietor Narain Das, who are dealers. IT was stated in the complaint that on 12. 7. 1984, the Insecticide Inspector and District Agriculture Officer, Rajasthan Canal Project, Anoopgarh (Sri Ganganagar) took sample of the insecticide Rogor (Dimethoate) 30 EC from the premises of M/s. Thakar Das Rajendra Kumar, Sri Vijaynagar (Sri Ganganagar) in presence of its proprietor Narain Das (respondent No. 3), who were dealers and prepared fard and divided the sample into three parts as required by the law. One of the samples was sent for analysis to the State Pesticide Testing Laboratory Quality Control, Durgapura, Jaipur and the Insecticide Analyst, State Pesticide Testing Laboratory Quality Control, Jaipur gave his report on 28. 9. 1984, in which it was reported that the sample did not conform to the relevant is specification 3903-1975 in the active ingredient and hence, it was misbranded. IT was also stated in the report that batch number of the insecticide was 366 and date of manufacturing was July, 1983 and date of expiry was Jan. , 1985. When the sample was not found in accordance with the prescribed standard, a notice dated 13. 11. 1984 was given by the Insecticide Inspector and District Agriculture Officer Rajasthan Canal Project, Anoopgarh (Sri Ganganagar) to the dealer M/s. Thakar Das Rajendra Kumar, Sri Vijaynagar (Sri Ganganagar) from whom, sample was taken. On this complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Anoopgarh (Sri Ganganagar) vide order dated 18. 4. 1987 took cognizance against the present accused petitioners and M/s. Thakar Das Rajendra Kumar Sri Vijaynagar (Sri Ganganagar) (respondent No. 2) and its proprietor narain Das (respondent No. 3) for the offence under Sections 2, 18/29 of the Act of 1968. In this petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. , it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that since the complaint was filed after the expiry of shelf life of the insecticide in question, therefore, the accused petitioners were deprived of their valuable right to get the sample re-tested from Central Insecticide Laboratory and it has prejudiced in their defence and in these circumstances, continuation of the proceedings against the accused petitioners amount to abuse of the process of the court and should be quashed. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. Before proceeding further, it would be worth while to quote here Sec. 24 of the Act of 1968. "report of Insecticide Analyst.- (1) The Insecticide Analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis under sub-section (6) of Section 22, shall, within a period of sixty days, deliver to the insecticide Inspector submitting it a signed report in duplicate in the prescribed form. (2) The Insecticide Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken as shall retain the other copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the sample. (3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by an Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein,and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken has within twenty eight days of the receipt of a copy of the report notified in writing the Insecticide Inspector or the court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. (4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory, where a person has under sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of the Insecticide Analyst's report, the court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or of the accused, cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the magistrate under sub-section (6) of Sec. 22 to be sent for test or analysis to the said Laboratory, which shall make the test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or under the authority of, the Director of the Central Insecticides Laboratory the result thereof, and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. (5) The cost of a test or analysis made by the Central Insecticides Laboratory under sub-section (4) shall be paid by the complainant or the accused, as the court shall direct. "
(3.) SEC. 21 of the Act of 1968 empowers the Insecticide Inspector to take samples of any insecticide and send such samples for analysis to the Insecticide Analyst for test in the prescribed manner and as per sub-SEC. (5) of SEC. 22 of the Act of 1968, he shall divide the sample into three portions and effectively seal and as per sub-section (6) of SEC. 22 one of the samples shall be forwarded by him to the Insecticide Analyst for test or analysis. As per SEC. 24 (1) of the Act of 1968, the Insecticide Analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis under Sub-SEC. (6) of SEC. 22, shall, within a period of sixty days, deliver to the Insecticide Inspector submitting it a signed report in duplicate in the prescribed form and according to sub-sec. (2) of SEC. 24, the Insecticide Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and the report of the Insecticide Analyst shall be conclusive evidence unless the person from whom sample was taken, has within twenty eight days of the receipt of a copy of the report notified in writing the Insecticide Inspector or the court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intents to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. Sub- section (4) of SEC. 24 casts a duty on the Insecticide inspector to make compliance of the provisions for re-testing etc. From perusing the record of the present case, it appears that the sample was taken by the Insecticide Inspector and District Agriculture Officer, Rajasthan Canal Project, Anoopgarh (Sri Ganganagar) on 12. 7. 1984 from M/s. Thakar Das Rajendra Kumar, Sri Vijainagar (Sri Ganganagar), Thereafter, the said sample was sent to the State Pesticide Testing Laboratory Quality Control, Government of Rajasthan, Durgapura, Jaipur for analysis and the Insecticide Analyst, State Pesticide Testing Laboratory Quality Control, Jaipur gave his report on 28. 9. 1984 and found that the sample was misbranded. The date of manufacturing of the insecticide in question was July, 1983 and the date of expiry was Jan. 1985. The complaint was filed on 18. 4. 1987, meaning thereby after the expiry of shelf life oaf the insecticide in question. The next question that arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances just mentioned above when the complaint was filed after the expiry of the shelf-life of the insecticide in question, proceedings u/sec. 482 Cr. P. C. can be quashed or not. ;