CRLP/10025/2014 of M/S. SAGAR FERTILIZER REP., BY A. SUDHAKAR REDDY AND 5 OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed [under ][Sectioo ][482 ][Cr.P.C',]seeking to quash the [complaint ][in ][C.C.No.204 ][of ][2Ol4 ][on the ][Iile]of the Additiona-l Judicial [First ][Class ][Magistrate, ][Sangareddy,]Medak District.

2. Heard and perused [the ][record.]

The brief facts of the case brief facts of the case facts of the case of the case case [[are ][that the ][Agricultural]][[that the ][Agricultural]][[Agricultural]]

3. The brief facts of the case brief facts of the case facts of the case of the case case [[are ][that the ][Agricultural]][[that the ][Agricultural]][[Agricultural]]Officer/ Insecticide [Inspector, Gajwel ][has ][inspected ][the ][premises]of M/s. Sagar Fertilizers, [Gajwel ][on ][23.10.2O10 ][and ][drawn]samples of insecticide [namely ]["Letha-l ][Super 505" ][(Chloropyriphos]50 % EC [+ ]Cypermethrtn [Sok ][EC), ][bearing ][batch ][No.344' ][The]product was manufactured [by ][M/s. ][Insecticides ][(India) ][Limited ][in]January 2O1O which [was ][to ][expire ][in ][December ][2011' ][After]anaTyzing the said sample, [the ][Joint ][Director ][of ][Agriculture ][(IA)]PTL and Coding Center, [Hyderabad gave ][report, dated ][11-11-]2O 10 stating that the [same ][is ][misbranded ][The ][copy ][of ][the]alalysis report was [served ][on dealer and got ][the]acknowledgm ent. [Prima ]facie, [tt.e ][flow ][of ][misbranded ][product ][in]

the market is detrimenta-l to the interest of the people and sellingof misbra:nded product is nothing but intentional cheating to getprofit from the poor public farmers. The investigation establishedthat the petitioners have committed offence punishable underSection 29 of Insecticides Act for the contravention of Section3(k)(1) of the Insecticides Act (for short "the Act").4. The Insecticide Inspector served the analyst report, dated11.11.2010 on petitioner No.1 on 24.11.2O1O. On the same dayunder the cover of panchanama the said product was sought tobe seized, the said stock was not available sarrle was recorded inthe panchanama. Basing on the said report, the Joint Director ofAgriculture issued a show cause notice dated 16. 12.2OlO to M/s.Sagar Fertilizers, Dealer of M/s. Insecticides India Ltd,, themalufacturer of the product in question to submit explanation asto why the license of M/ s. Sagar Fertilizers should not besuspended/ cancelled under Section 10( 1 ) (c) r/w Section 14 ( 1)(B) and A (2) of the Act. To the said show cause notice,petitioner No.1 representing M/s. Sagar Fertilizers submitted arepresentation dated 28.12.2010 stating that it is the directdealer of Insecticides India Ltd., and also the sample drawn was .1,,,:

-:''s+fif.

.i

l

in original sealed condition [and was ][stored ][properly ][ald ][it ][also]has the protection under Section [30(3) ][of Insecticides Act.]

5. The authorized signatory [representing ][M/s. ][Insecticides]India Ltd submitted representation [dated ][17 ][-l2.2OlO ][to ][show]cause notice stating that they [are ][not ][satished ][with ][the ][result]and wants to contest the [report and ][requested ][Joint ][Director of]Agriculture, Medal [(JDA) ]to [send referee ][sample ][for ][Re-analysis ][to]CIL and kept pending till the [results comes. Similar ][request ][was]also made to Commissioner and [Director ][of ][Agriculture]A.P.No.28. 12.2OlO.

6. Respondent No.2 '*'ithout [considering ][the ][above]explanations, has hled the [complaint against ][the ][petitioners ][in]the Court of the [learned ][Additional ][Judicial ][Magistrate ][of ][First]C1ass, Sangareddy on 06.12.2012 [under ][Section ][29 ][(ll ][(a) ][r/w]Section 3 (k) (1) of Insecticides [Act, ][1968 aJter ][obtaining ][the]sanction from the collector [and District ][magistrate, Medak ][on]t7.o4.2012.

7 . The learned Magistrate [took ][cognizalce ][of the ][case ][on]24.12.2013 and numbered the [case ][as ][C.C.No.204 ][of ][2O14 ][and]

thereafter issued summons to all the petitioners and petitionerNos.1 to 4 appeared on 3O.O7.2014. Challenging the saidNos.1 to 4 appeared on 3O.O7.2014. Challenging the saidcognizance, the petitioners have preferred the present CriminalPetition.Petition.

8. The learned counsel appeat-ing for the petitioners hasargued that accused No.l is the dealer and accused Nos.2 to 4are the administrators of M/s. Insecticide (lndia) Limited i.e.,manufacturer. It is further submitted by the learned counsel forthe petitioners that on 23.10.2010, the 2"a respondent inspectedthe shop of accused No.l and took samples of Chloropyriphos5O% Ec + Cypermethrin 5%, ald one sample was sent toInsecticides Analyst, PTL, Hyderabad and the date of expiry isDecember, 201 1 and the same was sent to arlaiyst. Thereafter,the Ana' lyst sent a report on 11.1f .2010 stating that the samplereferred was misbranded quality as defined in Section 3(K)(i) ofthe Insecticides Act, 1968 ald therea_fter, a show cause noticedated 16.12.2010 was issued ald the sarne was suitably repliedon 17.l2.2OlO and 28.l2.2O2O controverting the report of theInsecticides Analyst dated 1 1.1 1.2010. In the said reply notice,the petitioner clearly expressed its intention to controvert t analysis report and [requested ][to ][send ][the ][sample ][for ][reanalysis']But the respondent Department [instead ][of ][sending ][the ][samples]for re-analysis without depositing [the ][samples ][before ][the]competent Court had dragged [the ][proceedings ][and ][then ][the]complaint was lodged [only ][on ][06.12.2012.]g. As per Section 22 of the Insecticides [Act, the ][Insecticide]Inspector shall divide sample [taken ][into ][three ][portions. ][One]portion of the said sample so divided [shall be ][restored ][to ][the]person from whom the sample [was ][taken ][by ][the ][sample ][was]taken by the Insecticide [Inspector. ][One ][another ][portion ][sha-I1 ][be]sent to [the ][Insecticides ][Analyst for testing. ][The ][other]immediately sample shall be [produced before ][the ][Court. ][In ][this ][case, ][the]aforesaid [procedures have ][not ][been followed. As per Section 24 ][of]Insecticides Act, the [Analyst shall ][submit his ][report ][of ][alalysis ][to]the Insecticide Inspector [within ][a period ][of 30 ][days ][in ][duplicate']The Insecticide Inspector [on ][receipt of ][the ][report ][shall ][deliver ][one]copy of the report to [the ][person ][from whom the ][sample was ][taken]and retain the other copy [for ][use ][in ][arry ][prosecution ][in ][respect ][of]the sample. Such report shall [be ][conclusive ][evidence ][unless ][the]person from whom the sample was taken [he was ][within ][28 ][days]

of receipt of the report notified in writing to the Insecticide Inspector or the Court intending to adduce evidence incontroverting of the report. If the sample has not been re-anaTyzed as per Section 24(3), this Court by its own motion or onthe request either of the complainant or of the accused cause thesample of the insecticides produced before the Magistrateunder Section 22(61 of the Act to be sent for analysis to theCentral Testing Laboratory.sample of the insecticides produced before the Magistrateunder Section 22(61 of the Act to be sent for analysis to theCentral Testing Laboratory.

10. In this case, the prosecution has been launched before the

trial Court after a long delay and the shelf life of the insecticidescame to expire by December, 2011 even before frling of the case.Thereafter, the petitioners have lost their valuable rightunder Section 2a$) of the Act to seek re-analysis of the samplebefore the Central Insecticides Laboratory. Therefore, the chargesheet is liable to be quashed.

11. To support his contention, he relied on the decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Northern Mineral Limited v.

1?

Union of India and Anotherl and Northern [Minerals ][Limited]and others a, Rajasthan Gooentment and [another2.]

12. The learned Government Advocate appearing for [the]respondent has contended that the [2"a ][respondent has ][inspected]the shop of accused No.l on [23.1O.2O2O ][and ][at ][that ][time, ][they]took samples and the sarne was [sent ][for ][laboratory ][for alalysis]and the sarne was analyzed [and ][found ][misbranded ][in ][respect ][of]active ingredients content even [a-fter ][allowing ][the ][permissible]tolerance limits of 3% deviation [from ][the ][nominal ][declared ][value.]Thereafter, the explanation was called [for ][from ][the ][concerned]through registered [post ]and [given ]sufficient [time ][to ][answer ][arrd]the explanation was not satisfactory. [After the ][completion ][of ][the]formality, the complainant [placed materials before ][the]Sanctioning Authority. After [verifying ][the materials and ][applying]mind, the Sanctioning Authority issued [consent ][letter ][to]prosecute the case and thereby, the complaint [has ][been ][liled.]Since the chemical analysis report is as against [the ][petitioners,]the petitioners have to face trial. There is [no ][procedural](2010) 7 SCC 726(20 r6) l2 scc 298

irregularitiesAS alleged by the petitioners ald this petition isliable to be dismissed.

13. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the respondent has filed complaint before the learned Magistrate andthe same was taken on file as C.C.No.2O4 of 2014. Thepetitioners' contention is that on 23. 10.2010, the samples of ofChloropyriphos 50% Ec + Cypermethrin 5%, were taken. The 2"arespondent sent one sample to Insecticides Analyst, PTL,Hyderabad. The expiry date of the sample is December, 2011. Asper report, the samples were referred .misbranded quality asdef,rned in Section 3(K)(i) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 for reasonsgiven therein. Thereafter, the 2"a respondent has issued showcause notice to the petitioners on 16.l2.2OlO. The reply was senton 77.12.2010 and 28.12.2010 controverting the report of theInsecticides Analyst dated 11.11.2010. The prosecution has filedcomplaint only on 06.12.2012 and the satne was returned andre-presented 08.03.2013 arrd the sarne was taken on file on24.72.2013.

r

..4

r

..4

14. The main contention of the petitioners is that as per Section22 of Insecticides Act, the Insecticide Inspector ought to havedivided the sample into three portions. One portion of the sajdsample is to be restored to the person from whom the sample wastaken by the Insecticide Inspector and another portion shall beimmediately sent to the Insecticides Analyst for testing andalother sample shall be produced before the Court. But in thiscase, there is no any sample sent to the Court as per Section22 of tlre Insecticides Act. Further as per Section 24 of theInsecticides Act, Insecticide Analyst shall submit his report ofanalysis to the Insecticide Inspector within a period of 3O days induplicate. In turn, the Insecticide Inspector on receipt of thereport shall deliver one copy of the report to the person fromwhom the sample was taken and retain the other copy for use inany prosecution in respect of the sample. But in this case, thesaid procedures have not been followed.

1 5. Further the contention of the petitioners is that theopportunity to re- analysis under Section 2a@) of the Act couldnot be availed by the petitioners, since the 2"d respondent failedto send the sample for re-analysis. Already the petitioners have \

sent a reply, dated 17.12.2O1O and 28. l2.2OlO by controvertingthe report and rebutting the allegations of the show cause notice.While so the 2"a respondent has to take steps for re_analysis ofthe sample as per Sectiorr 2a@l of the Insecticides Act.

16. Such report shall be conclusive evidence unless the personfrom whom the sample was taken within 2g days of receipt of thereport notified in writing to the Insecticide Inspector or the courtintending to adduce evidence in controverting of the report. If thesample has not been re-alalyzed as per Section 24(3) of the Act,this Court by its own motion or on the request either of thecomplainant or of the accused cause the sample of theinsecticides produced before the Magistrate No.II under section22(61 of the Act to be sent for analysis to the Central TestingLaboratory.

17. In Northern Mineral Limited v. Union of India andAnother (1 supra) the Hon,ble Supreme Court held in paraNos.22, 24,25 as under:- "22.From the language and the underlying objectbehind Section 24(3) and (4) of the Act as also fromthe ratio of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisthe A

(\,

decisions a-foresaid of this Court, we are of the opinionthat mere noti$,'ing intention to adduce evidence incontroversion of the report of the Insecticide Analystconfers on the accused the right and clothes the courtjurisdiction to send the sample for analysis by theCentral Insecticides Laboratory ald an accused is notrequired to demald in specific terms that sample besent for analysis to Central Insecticides Laboratory. Inour opinion the mere intention to adduce evidence incontroversion of the report, implies demand to sendthe sample to Central Insecticides Laboratory for testand analysis.

24. No proceeding was pending before any Court,when the accused was served with Insecticide Analystreport, the intention was necessa-rily required to beconveyed to the Insecticide Inspector, which was [so]done by the appellant ald in this backgroundInsecticide In spector was obliged to institutecomplaint forthwith and produce sample and requestthe court to send the sample for analysis and test [to]the Centra,l Insecticides Laboratory. Appellant didwhatever was possible for it. Its right has beendefeated by not sending the sample for alalysis [and]report to Central Insecticides Laboratory.

25. It may be mentioned herein that shelf life of theinsecticides had expired even prior to the filing of thecomplaint. The position therefore which emerges is

that by sheer inaction the shelf life of the sample ofinsecticides had expired and for that reason no stepwas possible to be taken for its test and analysis byCentral Insecticides Laboratory. Valuable right of theappelialrt having been defeated, we are of the opinionthat allowing this criminal prosecution against theappellant to continue shall be futile and abuse of theprocess of Court."

18. Relying on the above judgment, the Apex Court inNorthern Minerals Limited and others a. RajasthanGouentment and another (2 supra) the Apex Court heldASunder:- "12. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel forthe respondents in distinguishing the right of the personfrom whom the sample was taken, as mandatedunder Section 24(3) is concerned, we need only refer tosub-Section (4) of Section 24 of the Act which extends theabove right, even to the complainant and theaccused. Read harmoniously, therefore, we have nohesitation to conclude, that insofar as the person fromwhom the sample was taken, the right to raise anobjection is circumscribed by requiring him to indicate hisintention to do so within 28 days of the receipt of the copyof the report. There is however no such limitation of timeplaced by the legislature on the complainant and/or theother accused proceeded against. In the above view of the matter, insofar as the [present ]appeal is concerned, [we]hnd, that a vital right vested in the appellants/ accused toget the sample re-tested (from the Central InsecticidesLaboratory), to controvert the report of analysis of thesample obtained by the Insecticide Inspector, stoodfrustrated. The appellants have lost the right to disprovetheir guilt. The appellants cannot [be ][proceeded against,]when they have, for no fault of their own, lost a [vital ][right]of defence. We are satished to conclude, that [under ][sub-]Section (4) of Section 24 of the Act, an [accused ][other ][than]a person from whom the sample is taken, also [has ][a ][right]to adduce evidence in controversion of the [Insecticide]Analys t's Report, and in case the accused [avail ]of [the]above right under sub-Section [(4) ]of Section [24, ][he must]bear the expenses of the test or analysis, to [be ][made ][by]the Central Insecticides Laboratory [(under ][sub-Section]5 of Section 24)."

19. On careful reading of the [aforesaid ][judgments, ][it ][is ][clear]that the underlying object behind Section [24][ J]and [(a) ][of ][the ][Act]is that mere notifying intention to adduce [evidence in]controversion of the report of the [Insecticide ][Analyst ][confers ][on]the accused the right and [clothes ][the ][court ][jurisdiction ][to ][send]the sample for analysis by the Central [Insecticides ][Laboratory]and an accused is not required to [demand ]in [specific ][terms that]sample to be sent for analysis to [Central Insecticides ][Laboratory.]

When the accused was served with Insecticide Analyst report, theintention was necessarily required to be conveyed to theintention was necessarily required to be conveyed to theInsecticide Inspector, which was so done by the appellarrt and theInsecticide Inspector was obliged to institute complaint forthwithand produce sampie and request the court to send the sample foranalysis and test to the Centra-l Insecticides Laboratory. In thisand produce sampie and request the court to send the sample foranalysis and test to the Centra-l Insecticides Laboratory. In thiscase a1so, the petitioners submitted reply controverting the reportof the Insecticide Analyst dated I 1. 1 1.2010 and also expressedits intention to controvert the report and adduce the evidence asper the Act. But the 2"d respondent failed to launch prosecutionof the Insecticide Analyst dated I 1. 1 1.2010 and also expressedits intention to controvert the report and adduce the evidence asper the Act. But the 2"d respondent failed to launch prosecutionimmediately after the reply of the notice but the prosecution waslaunched on 18.03.2013 with defect and the same was returnedand thereafter it was re-presented on 24.12.2013. This is a_fterthe lapse of expiry period. Therefore, the valuable right of theaccused has been defeated.the lapse of expiry period. Therefore, the valuable right of theaccused has been defeated.

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments hasclearly stated that shelf life of the insecticides had expired evenprior to the filing of the complaint. The position therefore whichemerges is that by sheer inaction the shelf life of the sample ofinsecticides had expired and for that reason, no steps was taken for its test and analysis by the Central Insecticides Laboratory.Therefore, allowing this criminal prosecution against thepetitioners is continue shall be futile and abuse of process ofCourt. In the case on hald also, the [prosecution was launched]aJter the expiry of the aforesaid sample and the right of [the]accused to sent the sample was defeated and thereby, this [Court]is inclined to quash the charge sheet.

21. In the result, this Criminal Origina.l Petition is ailowed aldthe charge sheet in C.C.No2O4 of 2Ol4 on [the ]file of [the ][learned]Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, [Medak]District, is hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stald [closed']

Sd/. V.KAVITHAASSISTANT REGISTRARC /$/

//TRUE COPY/I

SECTION OFFTCER

To,

1. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, Medak District.2. fwo CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana atHyderabad [OUT]3. One CC to Sri. M. RAVINDRANATH REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]4. Two CD CopiesPSR,,\Q

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

ORDERCRLP.No.10025 ot [2014]

lHE [ST4]14:,Je(oot1 I fiA8 2024to€SPATCH 6O,'/

ALLOWING OF [THE CRIMINAL ][PETITION.]

@cu't

c\}V"\