Holding

The State failed to comply with the statutory procedure of providing the third sample to the accused, thereby depriving the accused of a statutory defence, and the complaint was rightly quashed.

Summary

The State of Punjab prosecuted National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. for allegedly selling an adulterated insecticide, Monocil. An Insecticide Inspector seized two samples, sent one to the Public Analyst who reported the product non‑conforming, and issued a show‑cause notice. The respondent requested that the second sample be sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory (CIL) for further testing, but the State failed to do so and did not provide the third statutory sample to the manufacturer. The High Court quashed the complaint, holding that the delay and failure to furnish the third sample deprived the accused of a statutory defence. The Supreme Court examined Sections 21, 22 and 24 of the Insecticides Act and affirmed that the State’s non‑compliance with the sample‑division and testing provisions justified the quashing of the proceedings, and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Did the State comply with the statutory requirements of Sections 22 and 24(3)-(4) of the Insecticides Act regarding division of the seized sample and provision of a third portion to the accused?
Whether the failure to provide the third sample to the accused deprives it of a statutory defence, warranting quashing of the criminal complaint?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedures. 482
Insecticides Act, 1968s. 21, s. 22(5), s. 22(6), s. 24(3), s. 24(4)

Subjects

Insecticides Actsample divisionstatutory defencequashing of complaintcriminal procedureSection 482 CrPCCentral Insecticides Laboratory

Judgment

THE STATE OF PUNJAB A
v.
NATIONAL ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.

OCTOBER 25, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.P. KURDUKAR. JJ.) B

Insecticides Act, 1968 :

" Sections 21, 22,24---lnsecticide Inspector-Powers of search
etc.-Sample seized to be divided into three proportions-One to be given to C
the manufacturer or person from whom the illSecticide was given-One to be
sent to Insecticide Analyst-Accused to be notified the result of the
report-Accused entitled to have the sample given to him, tested by the Central
Insecticide Laboratory and adduce evidence of the report so given-171ird
sample not given and the party deprived of his valuable defence statutorily
available to him-Quashing of complaint justified-No inteiference called for. D

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1895 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.92 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Crl.M.No.6835-M(A) of 1991. E
Ranbir Yadav and R.S. Suri for the Appellant.

G.L. Sanghi and M.K. Dua for the Respondent.

The folloWing Order of the Court was delivered : F
Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the High G
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh made on March 13, 1992 in
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6835-M(A) of 1991.

The admitted position is that the respondent is a manufacturer of
Monocil, an Insecticide. Insecticide Inspector visited the factory of the
respondent on August 18, 1988 and had taken two Samples of Monocil H
807
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A from batch No.0319, manufactured in March, 1988 when the same was
exposed for sale in August, 1989. Admittedly, he had taken two samples
thereof and sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst. The Public
Analyst in his report dated Odober 12, 1988 reported that the ingredients
used were 33.02% E.C. as against the specification of 36%. Accordingly,
B it was not in conformity with the ISi specifications., Consequently, he
opined that it was adulterated. On receipt thereof, show cause notice was
issued on October 21, 1988 as to why the respondent should not be
proceeded against for sale of an adulterated insecticide. On receipt there-
of, the respondent had given a reply on November 7, 1988 requesting the
. appellant to send the second sample to Central Insecticides Laboratory so
C as to enable them "to adduce evidence in controversion of the allegations
made against us you may please have the retained/refer sample analysed
by CIL", that was not done. The complaint was laid on March 25, 1989 for
prosecution of the respondent in the Court of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kapurthala. The respondent challenged the same in the
D proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the
impugned order, the High Court has held that the appellant had delayed
in taking action; nor was the sample in the custody of the appellant sent
to the Central Insecticides Laboratory; the appellant had deprived the
respondent of its valuable defence due to delay. Under these circumstan-
ces, the proceedings for prosecution of the respondent is a waste of public
E time; accordingly, it quashed the proceedings. Though, prima facie, we are
not impressed with the reasoning given by the High Court, on perusal and
conjoint reading of Section 21, 22 and 24 of the Act, we are of the view
that ultimate conclusion to quash the complaint, in the circumstances, is
right. The substance of the question is : whether the appellant has complied
F with the statutory requirements envisaged under Section 22 read with
Section 24(3) and (4) of the Act? Section 21 of the Insecticides Act, 1968
(for short, the 'Act') gives power to the Insecticide Inspector to enter and
search, at all reasonable times and With such assistance, if any, as he
considers necessary any premises in which he has reason to believe that an
offence under the Act or the rules made thereunder has been or is being
G or is about to be committed, for the purpose of satisfying himself that the
provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder or the conditions of
any certificate of reg!stration or licence issued thereunder are being com-
plied with etc. etc. He shall have power to enter and search the premises
and take action, as contemplated under the Act including to take samples
H of any insecticides and send such samples for analysis to the Insecticide
STA1Ev. NATIONAL ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDS. LID. 809

Analyst for its test in the prescribed manner. The procedure has been A
prescribed under Section 22 of the Act. The manner in which Insecticide
Inspector is empowered to seize the record etc. and also to send such
analysis to the Analyst is provided therein. Sub-section (5) & (6) provide
the manner in which the samples of an insecticide for the purpose of test
or analysis, shall be taken; it reads as under :
B
/
"(5) where an Insecticide Inspector takes a sample of an insecticide
for the purpose of test or analysis, he shall intimate such purpose
in writing in the prescribed form to the person ·from whom he takes
\ it and, in the presence of such person unless he willfully absents
himself, shall divide the sample into three portions and effectively C
seal and suitably mark the same and permit such person to add
his own seal and mark to all or any of the portions so sealed and
marked:

Provided that where the insecticide is made up in containers of
small volume, instead of dividing a sample as aforesaid, the lnac- D
ticide Inspector may, and if the insecticide be such that it is likely
to deteriorate or be otherwise damaged by exposure shall, take
three of the said containers after suitable marking the same and,
where necessary, sealing them. "
E
"(6) The Insecticide Inspector shall restore one portion of a sample
so divided or one container, as the case may be, to the person from
- ....... whom he takes it and shall retain the remainder and dispose of
the same as follows :

(i) One portion or container, he shall forthwith send to the lnsec- F
ticide Analyst for test or analysis: and

(ii) the second, he shall produce to the court before which
proceedings, if any, are instituted in respect of the insecticide."

A reading thereof would indicate that Insecticide Inspector is em- G
powered to take samples of insecticides for the purpose of test or analysis,
as contemplated and in the manner laid down in the Act and the rules. He
shall divide the sample into three· portions and effectively seal and suitably
mark the same and permit such person to add his own seal and mark to
all or any of the portions so sealed and marked. Under the proviso, where H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A the insecticide is made up in containers of small volume instead of dividing
a sample as specified, the Insecticide Inspector may, and if the insecticide
be such that it is likely to deteriorate or be otherwise damaged by exposure,
shall, take three of the said containers after suitably marking the same and,
where necessary, sealing them. Under sub-section (6), the Insecticide
Inspector thereafter shall restore one portion of a sample so divided or
B one container, as the case may be, to the person from whom he takes it ·
and he shall retain the remainder and dispose of the same as envisaged in
clauses (i) and (ii) .. After the receipt of the report, sub-section (3) of
Section 24 declares that "any document purporting to be a report signed

c
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." Sub-section (4)
D of Section 24 envisages that "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 controver-·
sion, 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
E sub-section (6) of Section 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 Insec-
ticides Laboratory the result. thereof, and such report shall be conclusive
evidence of the facts therein". Under sub-section (6), the cost of the test
F or analysis made by the Centre Insecticide Laboratory, under sub-section
(4) shall be paid by the complainant or the accused, as the court shall
direct. Thus, it would be clear that after the inspection and seizure of the
insecticide, the insecticide Inspector shall divide the insecticide into three
portions, as contemplated and in the manner prescribed and deliver one
such sample to the manufacturer or person from whom insecticide was
G taken. 0De should be sent to the Insecticide Analyst. After the receipt of
the report, the accused would be notified of the result of the report.
Thereafter, the complaint is required to be lodged in the Court. At that
stage, two options are open to the accused. The accused is entitled to have
one copy of the sample entrusted to him to have it notified to the Court
H for proving to be contrary to the conclusive evidence of the report of the
STAlEv. NATIONALORGANICCHEMICALINDS.LTD. 811

analyst; after such a notification having been given to the Court, he is A
entitled to have it tested by Central Insecticide Laboratory and adduce
evidence of the report so given. That such certificate by the Director of the
CIL has a proof of his defence to dislodge the conclusiveness attached to
the report of the Insecticide Analyst under sub-section (3) of Section 24.
The other option is, after the complaint is laid in the Court, the copy of B
the sample that is lodged with the Court by the Insecticides Inspector,
would be requested to be sent by the Court to the CIL and the report thus
given by the Director of CIL shall be conclusive evidence as to the quality,
consent and facts stated therein. The cost thereof is to be borne either by
the complainant or by the accused, as may be directed by this Court.
c
Unfortunately, in this case, the appellant did not adopt the course as
was required under the Act. Of course, the respondent, without availing of
the remedy of report by Director of CIL, may not be entitled ·to plead
deprivation of the statutory defence. But the complaint should be lodged
. with utmost dispatch so that the accused may opt to avail the statutory
defence. The appellant had ·not given third sample to the respondent. As D
a result, the respondent has been deprived of his statutory opportunity to
have the sample tested by the CIL. Resultantly, the respondent has been
deprived of a valuable defence statutorily available to him. Under these
circumstances, we think that further proceedings in the Court of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate would be rendered fruitless. Consequently, though for E
different reasons the complaint quashed by the Court may be justified
warranting no interference.
-~ ..........
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

G.N. Appeal dismissed.