REPORTABLE

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 766 OF 2003

NORTHERN MINERAL LTD.               …. APPELLANT

   Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                     .... RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

C.K. PRASAD, J.

1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 5th November,  

2001  passed  by  the  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court  at  

Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2000, whereby the  

revision preferred by the appellant against the order dated 13th  

November,  1999  passed  by  the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  

Patiala refusing to discharge the appellant has been rejected.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the  

appellant  company is  a  Private  Limited Company registered  

under the Companies Act, 1956 and inter alia  engaged in the  

manufacturing  of   insecticides  including  Monocrotophos  36  

SL.  On 10th September, 1993, the Insecticide Inspector drew  

sample  of  Monocrotophos  36  SL  from  the  shop  of  the  

appellant’s  dealer,  M/s.  Jindal  Traders  respondent  no.  2  

herein.  The  aforesaid  insecticide,  sample  of  which  was  

collected by the Insecticide Inspector,  was manufactured by  

the appellant company in September, 1992.  The sample so  

collected  was  sent  for  analysis  to  the  Regional  Pesticides  

Testing  Laboratory,  Chandigarh  who  submitted  its  report  

dated  13th October,  1993  stating  that  the  sample  was  

misbranded  as  it  did  not  conform  to  the  relevant  ISI  

specifications.   The Show Cause Notice dated 1st November,  

1993 was issued to the appellant and it was informed about  

the  report  of  the  Regional  Pesticides  Laboratory  which  

according  to  the  appellant  was  received  on  3rd November,  

1993.  The appellant replied to the notice by its letter dated  

17th November,  1993  inter  alia expressing  its  “intention of  

2

adducing  evidence in controversion of report”.  It also alleged  

that the report of the Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory is  

of no consequence. After the Joint Director, Agriculture, gave  

its  consent  for  prosecution  of  the  appellant  company  and  

respondent  No.  2  on  23rd February,  1994  the  Insecticide  

Inspector  filed  the  complaint  in  the  Court  of  Chief  Judicial  

Magistrate, Patiala on 16th March, 1994 alleging commission of  

offence under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act.  Shelf-life  of  

the  insecticide  expired  in  February,  1994.    The  appellant  

company and Respondent No.2 herein i.e. M/s. Jindal Traders  

were arrayed as accused in the said complaint.  Appellant filed  

application for discharge under Section 245 of  the Criminal  

Procedure Code.  But the learned Magistrate by Order dated  

13th November, 1999 dismissed the same, inter alia observing  

as follows :

“Since the accused did not make prayer for getting the  

second sample reanalyzed, the authorities cited at bar by the  

learned counsel for the accused do not render any assistance   

to the accused.  Rather, authority cited by learned Additional   

PP for the State is fully applicable Moreso, the case is yet at   

its  threshold  and therefore,  only prima facie  commission  of   

offence has to be taken into consideration at this stage.  The  

3

plea of the learned counsel for the accused that sample was   

drawn  from  the  sealed  container  will  be  evaluated  after  

adducing the evidence which would be adduced during the   

course  of  trial.   Consequently,  both  the  applications  for  

discharge of the accused stand dismissed being devoid of any  

merit.”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred  

Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2000 before the High Court of  

Punjab and Haryana.  Revision application preferred by the  

appellant was heard alongwith Criminal Revision Petition No.  

106 of 2000 preferred by another accused in a different case.  

The High Court by Order dated 5th November, 2001 dismissed  

the  Revision  Application  preferred  by  the  appellant.   While  

doing so, the High Court observed as follows:

“The upshot of the above discussion is that the weight   

of the judicial opinion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India   

and of this Court favours the petitioners case that re-analysis   

is a valuable right which gets defeated if the complaint is filed  

after the expiry date and consequently the proceedings must   

be  dropped.   The  question  which  is  now  required  to  be  

considered is whether the petitioners exercised their right to   

seek  re-analysis  or  not.   The  replies  to  the  Show-Cause  

Notices  indicate  that  Apex  Mineral  did  seek  re-analysis   

whereas Northern Minerals did not.  Re-analysis by Central   

4

Insecticides Laboratory was not done in neither case.  Where   

a party does not ask for a second analysis it should not be   

permitted to complain that its right of re- analysis has been  

defeated.  This grievance can only be valid if a party seeks re-

analysis before expiry but was denied this right.

Consequently,  Northern  Minerals  case  must  fail.  

Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2000 is dismissed.”

4. From  the  facts  stated  above,  it  is  evident  that  the  

complaint was filed on 16th March, 1994 whereas shelf  life of  

insecticide  expired  in  February,  1994.   The  appellant  had  

given its intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the  

report to Insecticides Inspector but had not specifically prayed  

for  analysis  of  the  sample  by  the  Central  Insecticides  

Laboratory.   

5. Mr. Arun Nehra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of  

the appellant submits that every insecticide has its shelf life  

and with passage of  time,  it  loses its  efficacy and therefore  

after the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide, it may not  

conform to the standard specifications.   He submits that in  

view  of  the  aforesaid,  the  shelf-life  shall  have  serious  

consequence  when  Insecticides  are  tested  or  analysed  after  

5

expiry of shelf-life.  In support of the submission, reliance has  

been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of State of  

Haryana vs. Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd. & Ors. (1999) 8 SCC  

190  and  our  attention  has  been  drawn  to  the  following  

passage from para 10 of the judgment, which reads as follows:

“10.  It has been submitted before us as well as before   

the  High  Court  that  the  Insecticide  Inspector  was  not   

competent  to  send the  sample  for  retesting   to  the  Central   

Insecticides Laboratory and that request for retesting should  

have been made to the court concerned.  Then the State has  

further submitted that no other defence than prescribed under  

Section  30 of  the  Act  could be allowed  to be raised  in the  

prosecution filed under the Act and further that the shelf life   

of the sample was not relevant as the Act does not prescribe  

any  expiry  date.   There  is  no substance  in  either  of  these  

contentions.  If the expiry date is not relevant, there was no  

reason why in the form prescribed for submission of the report  

by the Insecticide  Analyst,  the dates of  manufacture of  the   

article and the expiry date are mentioned.  We do not find any   

answer to this by the State.”

6. We find substance in the submission of Mr. Nehra and  

the decision relied on clearly supports his contention.  Statute  

mandates   disclosure of   expiry date of the insecticide. The  

form prescribed for submission of   the report by Insecticide  

6

Analyst contains columns for the date of the manufacture  and  

expiry.  Insecticides are substances specified in the schedule  

of the Insecticides Act and from perusal thereof it is evident  

that  many of  substances with passage of  time may lose its  

identity if exposed or comes into contact with other substance.  

Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that shelf-

life of   an insecticide  shall  have its bearing when   it   is  

tested or  analysed in the laboratory.   

7. Mr.  Nehra  submits  that  the  appellant  admittedly  had  

conveyed,  within  28  days  of  the  receipt  of  the  report,  its  

intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of  

the Regional Pesticides Laboratory in terms of Section 24(3) of  

the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).  

He points out that the language of sub-section (3) as well as  

sub-section (4) of  Section 24 of the Act is very clear and leaves  

no room of any ambiguity and it nowhere obliges the accused  

to state that it intends to get sample analysed from the Central  

Insecticides  Laboratory.  He emphasizes  that  sub-Section  (3)  

only  postulates  the  accused  to  notify  to  the  Insecticide  

Inspector or the Court that it intends to adduce evidence in  

7

controversion  of  the  report.   In  his  submission,  if  such  a  

requirement is read it would tantamount to adding words in  

sub-Section (3) as well as sub-Section (4) of Section 24 of the  

Act.  In sum and substance, submission of Mr. Nehra is that  

the law does not require the accused to say in addition that it  

demands analysis of  the sample by the Central  Insecticides  

Laboratory.   He  submits  that  when  appellant  conveyed  its  

intention  to  lead  evidence  in  controversion  of  the  report,  it  

would  imply  demand  for  sending  the  sample  to  Central  

Insecticides Laboratory for test and analysis.  In support of the  

submission, he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court  

in  the  case  of   State  of  Punjab  vs.  National  Organic  

Chemical  Industries  Ltd. (1997)  SCC  (Crl.)  312  and  our  

attention has been drawn to the following passages from para  

5 of the judgment which reads as follows :

“5……………… 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  for   

proving to be contrary to the conclusive evidence of the report  

of the analyst; after such a notification having been given to   

the  court,  he  is  entitled  to  have  it  tested  by  Central   

Insecticides Laboratory and adduce evidence of the report so  

8

given.   That such certificate by the Director of 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 the sample that is lodged with the court   

by the Insecticide 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, content   

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.”

8. Another decision relied on by the appellant to buttress its  

submission is the decision of this Court in the case of  Unique  

Farmaid  (P)  Ltd.  &  Ors.  (Supra) wherein  it  has  held  as  

follows:

“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 Insecticide Inspector or the court   

before  which  proceedings  are  pending  that  they  intend  to  

adduce evidence to controvert the report.  In the present cases   

9

the  Insecticide  Inspector  was  notified  that  the  accused  

intended to adduce evidence to controvert the report.”

9. Yet another decision on which reliance is placed is the  

decision of this Court in the case of  M/s. Gupta Chemicals  

Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. JT 2002  

(Suppl.1) SC 516, the relevant portion reads as follows :

“12. From our perusal of the aforequoted  provisions it   

is manifest that ordinarily in the absence of any material to   

the  contrary,  the  report  of  the  Insecticides  Analyst  will  be   

accepted  as  final  and  conclusive  of  the  material  contained  

therewith.   This  is,  however,  subject  to  the  right  of  the  

accused  to  have  the  sample  examined  by  the  Central   

Insecticides  Laboratory  provided  he  communicates  his  

intentions for the purpose within 28 days of the receipt of the   

copy of the report.  It needs no emphasis that this right vested   

under the statutes valuable for the defence, particularly in a  

case  where  the  allegations  are  that  the  material  does  not  

conform to the prescribed standard.  As noted earlier in the   

present  case  the  appellants  had  intimated  the  insecticide  

inspector  their  intention  to  have  the  sample  tested  in  the  

central insecticides laboratory within the prescribed period of   

28 days of receipt of the copy of the state analyst report, yet   

no step was taken by the inspector either to send the sample   

to the central insecticides laboratory or to file the complaint in   

the  court  with  promptitude  in  which  case  the  appellants   

would have moved the magistrate for appropriate order for the  

purpose.  The resultant position is that due to sheer inaction  

10

on the part of the inspector, it has not been possible for the   

appellant  to  have  the  sample  examined  by  the  central   

insecticides laboratory and in the meantime, the shelf-life of  

the  sample  of  insecticide  seized  had  expired  and  for  that   

reason no further step could be taken for its examination.  In   

the  circumstances,  we  are  of  the  view that  continuing  this  

criminal  prosecution  against  the  appellant  will  be  a  futile   

exercise and abuse of the process of court.  The High Court   

was  not  right  in  dismissing  the  petition  filed under Section  

482 of Cr.P.C.”

10.  Counsel  representing  the  respondents,  however,  

contends  that  excepting  intimating  its  intention  to  adduce  

evidence  in  controversion  of  the  report  of  the  Regional  

Pesticides Laboratory specific request was not made to send  

the sample for test and analysis by the Central Insecticides  

Laboratory and, hence, failure to send the sample for test and  

analysis  by  the  Central  Insecticides  Laboratory  in  no  way  

defeats  the  right  of  the  accused.  The  submission  advanced  

necessitates examination of scope and ambit of Section 24(3)  

& 4 of the Act, same read as follows :

“24. Report of Insecticide Analyst.-

xxx xxx xxx xxx

11

(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 section 22 to be sent   

for test or analysis to the said laboratory, {which shall, within   

a period of thirty days, 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.”

xxx xxx xxx xxx

12

11. From a plain  reading of  Section 24(3)  of  the  Act,  it  is  

evident that an accused within 28 days of the receipt of the  

copy  of  the  report  of  the  Insecticide  Analyst  to  avoid  its  

evidentiary  value  is  required  to  notify  in  writing  to  the  

Insecticide Inspector or the Court before which the proceeding  

is pending that it intends to adduce evidence in controversion  

of the report.  Section 24(4) of the Act provides that when an  

accused  had  notified  its  intention  of  adducing  evidence  in  

controversion of the Insecticide Analyst report under Section  

24(3)  of  the Act,  the court may of  its  own motion or in its  

discretion  at  the  request  either  of  the  complainant  or  the  

accused  cause  the  sample  to  be  sent  for  analysis  to  the  

Central Insecticides Laboratory.  Under the scheme of the Act  

when the accused had notified its intention to adduce evidence  

in controversion of the report of the Insecticide Analyst, the  

legal fiction that the report of the Insecticide Analyst shall be  

conclusive evidence of the facts stated in its report looses its  

conclusive  character.  The  Legislature  has  used  similar  

expression  i.e.  the  “intention  to  adduce  evidence  in  

13

controversion of the report” in both sub-section (3) and sub-

section (4) of Section 24 of the Act, hence both the expression  

has to be given one and the same meaning.  Notification of an  

intention  to  adduce  evidence  in  controversion  of  the  report  

takes out the report of the Insecticide Analyst from the class of  

“conclusive evidence” contemplated under sub-section (3)  of  

Section 24 of the Act.  Further intention of adducing evidence  

in controversion of the Insecticide Analyst report clothes the  

Magistrate the power to send the sample for analysis to the  

Central Insecticides Laboratory either on its own motion or at  

the request of the complainant or the accused.  In face of the  

language employed in Section 24(4) of the Act,  the act of the  

accused notifying in writing its intention to adduce evidence in  

controversion of the report in our opinion shall give right to  

the accused and would be sufficient to clothe the Magistrate  

the  jurisdiction  to  send  the  sample  to  Central  Insecticide  

Laboratory for analysis and it is not required to state that it  

intends to get sample analysed from the Central Insecticides  

Laboratory.  True it is that report of the Insecticides Analyst  

can be challenged on various grounds but accused can not be  

14

compelled to disclose those grounds and expose his defence  

and he is required only to notify in writing his intention to  

adduce  evidence  in  controversion.  The  moment  it  is  done  

conclusive evidentiary value of the report gets denuded and  

the statutory right to get the sample tested and analysed by  

the Central Insecticides Laboratory gets fructified.  

12. The  decisions  of  this  Court  in  the  cases  of   National  

Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. (Supra), Unique Farmaid  

(P) Ltd. & Ors. (Supra) and M/s. Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.  

(Supra), in our  opinion do support  Mr.  Nehra’s  contention.  

True it is that in first two cases, the accused, besides sending  

intimation  that  they  intend  to  adduce  evidence  in  

controversion of the report accused persons have specifically  

demanded for sending the sample for anlaysis by the Central  

Insecticides  Laboratory.   However,  the  ratio  of  the  decision  

does  not  rest  on this  fact.  While  laying  down the  law,  this  

Court only took into consideration that accused had intimated  

its intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report  

and  that  conferred  him  the  right  to  get  sample  tested  by  

15

Central Insecticides Laboratory. The decision of this Court in  

the case of M/s Gupta Chemicals (supra) is very close to the  

facts of the present case. In the said case “on receipt of the  

information about the State Analyst report the appellants sent  

intimation to the Inspector expressing their intention to lead  

evidence against the report” and this intimation was read to  

mean “their intention to have the sample tested in the Central  

Insecticides  Laboratory”.  From  the  language  and  the  

underlying object behind Section 24(3) and (4) of the Act as  

also from the ratio of the decisions aforesaid of this Court, we  

are  of  the  opinion  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 be sent for analysis to  

Central  Insecticides  Laboratory.  In  our  opinion  the  mere  

intention to adduce evidence in controversion of  the report,  

implies  demand to  send  the  sample  to  Central  Insecticides  

Laboratory for test and analysis.   

16

13. Section  24(3)  of  the  Act  gives  right  to  the  accused  to  

rebut  the  conclusive  nature  of  the  evidence  of  Insecticide  

Analyst  by  notifying  its  intention  to  adduce  evidence  in  

controversion of the report before the Insecticide Inspector or  

before  Court  where  proceeding in respect  of  the  samples  is  

pending. Further the Court has been given power to send the  

sample  for  analysis  and  test  by  the  Central  Insecticides  

Laboratory  of  its  own  motion  or  at  the  request  of  the  

complainant  or  the  accused.   No  proceeding  was  pending  

before  any  Court,  when  the  accused  was  served  with  

Insecticide  Analyst  report,  the  intention  was  necessarily  

required  to  be  conveyed  to  the  Insecticide  Inspector,  which  

was  so  done  by  the  appellant  and  in  this  background  

Insecticide  Inspector  was  obliged  to  institute  complaint  

forthwith and produce sample and request the court to send  

the sample for  analysis and test  to the Central  Insecticides  

Laboratory.  Appellant did whatever was possible for it.   Its  

right has been defeated by not sending the sample for analysis  

and  report  to  Central  Insecticides  Laboratory.  It  may  be  

17

mentioned herein that shelf life of the insecticides had expired  

even prior to the filing of the complaint.  The position therefore  

which emerges is that by sheer inaction the shelf  life of the  

sample of insecticides had expired and for that reason no step  

was possible to be taken for its test and analysis by Central  

Insecticides Laboratory. Valuable right of the appellant having  

been defeated, we are of the opinion that allowing this criminal  

prosecution against the appellant to continue shall be futile  

and abuse of the process of Court.

14. We are distressed to note the casual manner in which the  

whole  exercise  has  been  done.  Insecticide  Inspector  had  

collected the sample on 10th September, 1993 and sent it to  

the  Insecticide  Analyst  for  analysis  and  report.  Insecticide  

Analyst submitted its report dated 13th October, 1993. Notice  

of the report was sent to the appellant on Ist November, 1993,  

in  reply  whereof  by  letter  dated  17th November,  1993  it  

intimated its intention to adduce evidence in controversion of  

the report. The shelf-life of the pesticide had not expired by  

that time but expired in February 1994.  However, permission  

18

to file  complaint was given on 23rd February,  1994 and the  

complaint  was  actually  filed  on 16th March,  1994.  Had the  

authority  competent  to  grant  consent,  given  consent  and  

complaint lodged immediately after the receipt of intimation of  

the accused, sample could have very well sent for analysis and  

report, before the expiry of shelf-life. It is interesting to note  

that  Section 24(3)  and (4)  of  the  Act  obliges  the Insecticide  

Analyst and Central Insecticides Laboratory to make the test  

and analysis and report within thirty days.  When 30 days is  

good enough for report, there does not seem any justification  

not to lodge complaint within 30 days  from the receipt of the  

intimation from the accused and getting order for sending the  

sample  for  test  and  analysis  to  the  Central  Insecticides  

Laboratory. All who are entrusted with the implementation of  

the provisions of the Act, would be well  advised to act with  

promptitude  and  adhere  to  the  time-schedule,  so  that  

innocent persons are not prosecuted and real culprits not left  

out.

15. In  the  result,  the  appeal  is  allowed,  the  impugned  

judgments of the High Court  as also that of the Chief Judicial  

19

Magistrate  refusing to  discharge the  appellant  are set  aside  

and the appellant is discharged of its criminal liability.

………………………………….J.                                          ( HARJIT SINGH BEDI )

………………………………….J.                                ( C.K. PRASAD )

New Delhi, July  7, 2010.

20