Nisha Gupta, J. - (1.) This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred against the order dated 08.06.1999 whereby cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act.
(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 is a manufacturer of insecticides and he is manufacturing Endocell 35% EC and the petitioner No.1 has been granted appropriate license by the licensing authority. The Insecticide Inspector took a sample of Endocell 35% EC on 12.11.1998 and the sample was received by the Insecticides Analyst at Chandigarh on 19.11.1998 and the report was received on 12.01.1999 and dealer has received this report on 16.02.1999. A show cause notice was issued by the Inspector to the present petitioner which was replied by him. The complaint was lodged before the court on 08.06.1999 and the petitioner No.2 received notice from the court on 21.06.2004, wherein admittedly, the date of expiry of the product was July, 2000 and the contention of the present petitioner in this regard is that the petitioner has been deprived of a valuable right provided under Section 24/4 of the Act to have the second sample of the said product re-tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and hence proceedings should be quashed against him.
(3.) The petitioner has further relied on the judgment delivered in the case of Northern Mineral Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., 2010 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 283 : 2010 Cr. L.R. (SC) 729 , wherein it has been held as under: "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 Laboratcry 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 no, within 28 days of the receipt of the report, notify in writing to the Insecticide Inspector or the Court before which proceedings are pending that they interred to to adduce evidence to controvert the report. In the present cases the Insecticide Inspector was notified that the accused intended to adduce evidence to controvert the report.";