LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a prior analysis of a sample by the Central Insecticides Laboratory (CIL) before the filing of a formal complaint bars the accused’s right to have the sample re-analyzed by the CIL after the complaint is filed.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law – Insecticides Act
Case Name: Indofil Industries Ltd. and Ors. vs. State of Punjab
Judgment Date: July 3, 2017
Can a manufacturer be prosecuted for selling misbranded insecticides even if the sample was already analyzed by the Central Insecticides Laboratory (CIL) before the formal complaint was filed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving Indofil Industries Ltd. The court clarified the procedure for insecticide sample analysis and the rights of the accused under The Insecticides Act, 1968. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar, with Justice A.M. Khanwilkar authoring the opinion.
Case Background
On December 21, 2012, an Insecticide Inspector inspected the premises of M/s Jai Durga Pesticides Store, a licensed dealer. The dealer had insecticide Piroxofop-Propinyl 15% W.P. under the brand name ‘Gromate’, manufactured by Indofil Industries Ltd. for sale. The inspector took a random sample from the batch, which had a manufacturing date of November 30, 2011, and an expiry date of November 29, 2013.
The Insecticide Inspector prepared three sealed parcels of the sample. One was given to the dealer, and the other two were deposited with the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa. One of these was sent to the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana (the State Laboratory). The State Laboratory reported on January 11, 2013, that the sample was misbranded.
The dealer and the manufacturer (Indofil Industries Ltd.) received show cause notices on January 22, 2013, and February 11, 2013, respectively. The dealer then applied to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, for analysis of the spare sample. The Magistrate allowed this, and the spare sample was sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory (CIL) on April 6, 2013. The CIL reported on April 17, 2013, that the sample was misbranded. A formal complaint was filed on May 18, 2015.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| December 21, 2012 | Insecticide Inspector inspected M/s Jai Durga Pesticides Store. |
| January 11, 2013 | State Laboratory reported the sample as misbranded. |
| January 22, 2013 | Show cause notice issued to the dealer. |
| February 11, 2013 | Show cause notice issued to the manufacturer (Indofil Industries Ltd.). |
| April 6, 2013 | Spare sample sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory (CIL). |
| April 17, 2013 | CIL reported the sample as misbranded. |
| May 18, 2015 | Formal complaint filed in court. |
Course of Proceedings
Indofil Industries Ltd. filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the complaint. They argued that they were not given the opportunity to analyze the spare sample, as it was sent to the CIL before the complaint was filed. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petition on August 8, 2016. The High Court held that since the dealer had already availed the remedy of re-analysis, and the manufacturer was aware of the outcome, the manufacturer could not raise the plea of denial of right of re-analysis. The High Court also held that the report of the CIL was conclusive evidence.
The High Court also held that the manufacturer had not exercised its right to re-analysis, and that the complaint was filed after the expiry of the shelf life of the product was of no consequence, as the right to re-analysis was not available to the manufacturer. The High Court further held that the ratios laid down in the cases relied upon by the manufacturer were factually at variance from the case in hand.
Indofil Industries Ltd. then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation of several sections of The Insecticides Act, 1968, and The Insecticide Rules, 1971.
✓ Section 22 of The Insecticides Act, 1968 outlines the procedure for taking samples of insecticides. It requires the Insecticide Inspector to divide the sample into three portions, seal them, and give one portion to the person from whom the sample was taken. The remaining two portions are to be dealt with as per sub-section (6) of Section 22.
✓ Section 22(6)(ii) of The Insecticides Act, 1968 states that one portion of the sample should be produced before the Court where proceedings are instituted.
✓ Section 24(3) of The Insecticides Act, 1968 states that the report of the Insecticide Analyst is evidence of the facts stated therein, and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken notifies their intention to challenge the report within 28 days.
✓ Section 24(4) of The Insecticides Act, 1968 allows the court to send the sample to the CIL for analysis if the person intends to challenge the Insecticide Analyst’s report, unless the sample has already been tested by the CIL.
It states, “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…”
✓ Rule 27(5) of The Insecticide Rules, 1971 empowers the Insecticide Inspector to inspect premises and take samples.
✓ Rule 34 of The Insecticide Rules, 1971 prescribes the manner of dispatch of samples for test or analysis.
Arguments
The appellants, Indofil Industries Ltd., argued that the prosecution was flawed because the spare sample was sent to the CIL before the formal complaint was filed. They contended that under Section 22(6)(ii) of The Insecticides Act, 1968, the spare sample should have been produced before the court along with the complaint. They also argued that Section 24(4) of The Insecticides Act, 1968, gives the accused the right to have the spare sample analyzed by the CIL after the complaint is filed. Since the sample was already analyzed, the appellants could not exercise this right.
The appellants relied on several judgments, including State of Punjab Vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. [1996] 11 SCC 613, State of Haryana Vs. Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 8 SCC 190, Northern Mineral Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2010] 7 SCC 726 and M/s Northern Minerals Ltd. and Others Vs. Rajasthan Government [2016] 12 SCC 298, which they argued supported their position that the accused’s right to have the sample analyzed by the CIL cannot be defeated.
The respondent, the State of Punjab, argued that there was no procedural violation. They contended that the Insecticide Inspector could send the third sample to the CIL before filing a formal complaint, especially when the dealer had requested it. The State argued that the purpose of Section 24(4) is to allow the accused to have the sample analyzed by the CIL only if it has not already been analyzed. Since the CIL had already analyzed the sample, the appellants’ right under Section 24(4) was not infringed.
The State relied on State of Haryana Vs. Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 8 SCC 190 and Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan [2010] 7 SCC 735, arguing that these cases support the position that the Insecticide Inspector can send the sample to the CIL on the request of the person from whom the sample was collected.
Table of Submissions
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellants) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Procedure for Sample Analysis |
|
|
| Interpretation of Section 24(4) |
|
|
| Reliance on Precedents |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
✓ Whether the prior analysis of the spare sample by the Central Insecticides Laboratory (CIL), before the filing of a formal complaint, bars the accused’s right to have the sample re-analyzed by the CIL after the complaint is filed under Section 24(4) of The Insecticides Act, 1968.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether prior CIL analysis bars the accused’s right to re-analysis under Section 24(4) | The Court held that if a sample has already been tested by the CIL, the right of the accused to have the sample re-analyzed under Section 24(4) does not endure. The Court also held that the Insecticide Inspector has the power to send the sample for testing to the CIL on his own or upon request of the person from whom the sample was taken. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Cases Relied Upon
✓ State of Punjab Vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. [1996] 11 SCC 613 (Supreme Court of India): The Court noted that in this case, the accused was deprived of the opportunity to have the sample tested by the CIL. The Court observed that the complaint should be lodged with utmost dispatch so that the accused may opt to avail of the statutory defence.
✓ State of Haryana Vs. Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 8 SCC 190 (Supreme Court of India): The Court rejected the contention that the Insecticide Inspector could not send the sample to the CIL on his own. It held that the Insecticide Inspector is competent to send the third sample for testing to the CIL on receipt of a request from the person from whom the sample was obtained.
✓ Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan [2010] 7 SCC 735 (Supreme Court of India): The Court held that the Insecticide Inspector ought to have taken steps to send the third sample to the CIL or promptly filed a complaint in the Court to facilitate the accused to move the concerned Court for appropriate directions in that behalf.
✓ Northern Mineral Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2010] 7 SCC 726 (Supreme Court of India): The Court accepted the plea of the appellant that failure of the Insecticide Inspector to get the sample tested or analysed from the CIL and also having filed the complaint after the expiry date of the product, defeated the right of the appellant to seek direction from the Magistrate for sending the sample for testing and analysis by the CIL.
✓ M/s Northern Minerals Ltd. and Others Vs. Rajasthan Government [2016] 12 SCC 298 (Supreme Court of India): The Court concluded that continuing criminal prosecution against the appellant would be a futile exercise and an abuse of the process of Court as the Insecticide Inspector failed to send the sample for testing/analysis to the CIL before the expiry of shelf life of the insecticide.
✓ M/s Ravinder Kumar and Brothers Vs. State of Punjab [1996] Cri. L. J. 4293 (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
✓ M/s Krishi Kainder Vs. State of Punjab [1998] Cri. L. J. 3519 (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Legal Provisions Considered
✓ Section 21 of The Insecticides Act, 1968: Empowers the Insecticide Inspector to take samples and send them for analysis.
✓ Section 22 of The Insecticides Act, 1968: Specifies the procedure for taking samples and dividing them into three portions.
✓ Section 22(6)(ii) of The Insecticides Act, 1968: Requires one portion of the sample to be produced before the Court.
✓ Section 24(3) of The Insecticides Act, 1968: States that the Insecticide Analyst’s report is conclusive unless challenged within 28 days.
✓ Section 24(4) of The Insecticides Act, 1968: Allows the court to send the sample to the CIL for analysis, unless already tested by the CIL.
✓ Rule 27(5) of The Insecticide Rules, 1971: Empowers the Insecticide Inspector to inspect premises and take samples.
✓ Rule 34 of The Insecticide Rules, 1971: Prescribes the manner of dispatch of samples for test or analysis.
Table of Authorities
| Authority | Court | How Treated |
|---|---|---|
| State of Punjab Vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. [1996] 11 SCC 613 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished; the court noted that in this case, the accused was deprived of the opportunity to have the sample tested by the CIL. |
| State of Haryana Vs. Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 8 SCC 190 | Supreme Court of India | Followed; the court relied on this case to support the position that the Insecticide Inspector can send the sample to the CIL on the request of the person from whom the sample was collected. |
| Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan [2010] 7 SCC 735 | Supreme Court of India | Followed; the court relied on this case to support the position that the Insecticide Inspector ought to have taken steps to send the third sample to the CIL or promptly filed a complaint in the Court to facilitate the accused to move the concerned Court for appropriate directions in that behalf. |
| Northern Mineral Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2010] 7 SCC 726 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished; the court noted that in this case, the accused was deprived of the opportunity to have the sample tested by the CIL. |
| M/s Northern Minerals Ltd. and Others Vs. Rajasthan Government [2016] 12 SCC 298 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished; the court noted that in this case, the accused was deprived of the opportunity to have the sample tested by the CIL. |
| M/s Ravinder Kumar and Brothers Vs. State of Punjab [1996] Cri. L. J. 4293 | Punjab and Haryana High Court | Distinguished; the court noted that in this case, the accused was deprived of the opportunity to have the sample tested by the CIL. |
| M/s Krishi Kainder Vs. State of Punjab [1998] Cri. L. J. 3519 | Punjab and Haryana High Court | Distinguished; the court noted that in this case, the accused was deprived of the opportunity to have the sample tested by the CIL. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ submission that the spare sample must be produced before the court with the complaint. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Insecticide Inspector has the power to send the sample to the CIL on his own or upon request of the person from whom the sample was taken. |
| Appellants’ submission that the accused has a right to have the sample analyzed by CIL after complaint is filed. | The Court held that this right does not endure if the sample has already been tested by the CIL. |
| Appellants’ submission that prior CIL analysis defeats the accused’s right to re-analysis. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the purpose of Section 24(4) is to allow the accused to have the sample analyzed by the CIL only if it has not already been analyzed. |
| Respondent’s submission that the Insecticide Inspector can send the sample to CIL before filing the complaint. | The Court accepted this argument, stating that the Insecticide Inspector has the power to send the sample for testing to the CIL on his own or upon request of the person from whom the sample was taken. |
| Respondent’s submission that CIL analysis before complaint is valid, especially if requested by the person from whom the sample was collected. | The Court accepted this argument, stating that the CIL report obtained before the complaint is valid and can be used as evidence. |
| Respondent’s submission that Section 24(4) right applies only if CIL analysis has not already been done. | The Court accepted this argument, stating that the right under Section 24(4) does not endure if the sample has already been tested by the CIL. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Supreme Court distinguished the cases relied upon by the appellants, noting that those cases involved situations where the accused was deprived of the opportunity to have the sample tested by the CIL. The Court followed the cases relied upon by the respondent, holding that the Insecticide Inspector has the power to send the sample to the CIL on his own or upon request of the person from whom the sample was taken.
✓ The Court noted that in State of Punjab Vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. [1996] 11 SCC 613, the accused was deprived of the opportunity to have the sample tested by the CIL.
✓ The Court followed State of Haryana Vs. Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 8 SCC 190, holding that the Insecticide Inspector is competent to send the third sample for testing to the CIL on receipt of a request from the person from whom the sample was obtained.
✓ The Court followed Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan [2010] 7 SCC 735, holding that the Insecticide Inspector ought to have taken steps to send the third sample to the CIL or promptly filed a complaint in the Court to facilitate the accused to move the concerned Court for appropriate directions in that behalf.
✓ The Court distinguished Northern Mineral Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2010] 7 SCC 726, noting that in this case, the accused was deprived of the opportunity to have the sample tested by the CIL.
✓ The Court distinguished M/s Northern Minerals Ltd. and Others Vs. Rajasthan Government [2016] 12 SCC 298, noting that in this case, the accused was deprived of the opportunity to have the sample tested by the CIL.
✓ The Court distinguished M/s Ravinder Kumar and Brothers Vs. State of Punjab [1996] Cri. L. J. 4293, noting that in this case, the accused was deprived of the opportunity to have the sample tested by the CIL.
✓ The Court distinguished M/s Krishi Kainder Vs. State of Punjab [1998] Cri. L. J. 3519, noting that in this case, the accused was deprived of the opportunity to have the sample tested by the CIL.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Section 24(4) of The Insecticides Act, 1968. The Court emphasized that the right to have a sample analyzed by the CIL under this provision only exists if the sample has not already been tested by the CIL. The Court also highlighted the power of the Insecticide Inspector to send the sample for testing to the CIL on his own or upon request of the person from whom the sample was taken. The Court also emphasized the need to give effect to the intention of the legislature.
The Court also considered the fact that the dealer had already availed the remedy of re-analysis, and that the manufacturer was aware of the outcome of the analysis. This weighed against the manufacturer’s claim that they were denied their right to have the sample analyzed by the CIL.
The court was also influenced by the need to avoid a pedantic approach and to give effect to the intention of the legislature.
Sentiment Analysis Table
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Interpretation of Section 24(4) of The Insecticides Act, 1968 | 40% |
| Power of the Insecticide Inspector to send sample to CIL | 30% |
| Prior CIL analysis and dealer’s re-analysis | 20% |
| Need to avoid pedantic approach | 10% |
Fact:Law
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Logical Reasoning
Sample collected and sent to State Lab
State Lab report indicates misbranding
Dealer requests CIL analysis
Sample sent to CIL before complaint is filed
CIL report confirms misbranding
Manufacturer claims right to CIL analysis under Section 24(4)
Court holds that right under Section 24(4) is not available if CIL analysis has already been done
The Court’s reasoning was that the Insecticide Inspector has the power to send thesample to the CIL on his own or upon request of the person from whom the sample was taken. The Court held that the right under Section 24(4) of The Insecticides Act, 1968, to have the sample analyzed by the CIL does not endure if the sample has already been tested by the CIL.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by Indofil Industries Ltd., upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court clarified that the accused’s right to have a sample analyzed by the CIL under Section 24(4) of The Insecticides Act, 1968, does not apply if the sample has already been analyzed by the CIL. The Court also affirmed the power of the Insecticide Inspector to send the sample for testing to the CIL on his own or upon request of the person from whom the sample was taken.
This judgment is significant as it clarifies the procedure for insecticide sample analysis and the rights of the accused under The Insecticides Act, 1968. It establishes that a prior analysis of a sample by the CIL does not automatically bar the prosecution, provided that the sample was sent to the CIL in accordance with the law.
Implications
✓ Clarification of Section 24(4): The judgment clarifies that the right to have a sample re-analyzed by the CIL under Section 24(4) is not absolute. It only applies if the sample has not already been tested by the CIL.
✓ Power of the Inspector: The judgment affirms that the Insecticide Inspector has the power to send the sample for testing to the CIL on his own or upon request of the person from whom the sample was taken.
✓ Balance of Rights: The judgment strikes a balance between the rights of the accused and the need to ensure that misbranded insecticides are not sold in the market.
✓ Procedural Compliance: The judgment emphasizes the importance of following the prescribed procedures for sample collection and analysis under The Insecticides Act, 1968.
✓ Precedent for Future Cases: This judgment serves as a precedent for future cases involving similar issues under The Insecticides Act, 1968.
Dissent
There was no dissenting opinion in this case. The judgment was authored by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and concurred by Justice Dipak Misra.