NORTHERN MINERAL LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

                      [201 OJ 8 S.C.R. 1


                 NORTHERN MINERAL LTD.                              A
                             v.
                 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
             (Criminal Appeal No. 766 of 2003)
                        JULY 07, 2010
     [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.]

     Insecticides Act, 1968 - ss.24(3) and 24(4) - Scope and
ambit of - Insecticide sample drawn and sent for analysis -
Report of the Insecticide Analyst - Right of accused to rebut       C
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 -
Held:· Mere notifying of intention to adduce evidence, in           D
controversion of the report of the Insecticide Analyst, confers
on the accused the right and clothes the court the jurisdiction
to send the sample for analysis by the Central Insecticides
Laboratory and an accused is not required to demand in
specific terms that the sample be sent for analysis to Central      E
Insecticides Laboratory - On facts, when the accused was
served with Insecticide Analyst report, it notified its intention
to adduce evidence in controversion of the report but its right
was defeated as the sample was not sent for analysis to
Central Insecticides Laboratory - Shelf life of the insecticide     F
had expired even prior to filing of the complaint in court, and
for that reason no step was possible to be taken for its test
and analysis by Central Insecticides Laboratory - Valuable
right of the accused having been defeated, allowing criminal
prosecution against the accused to continue would be futile
and abuse of the process of court - Accused discharged of           G
its criminal liability - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s.245.
    Insecticides Act, 1968 - Authorities concerned entrusted ·

                               1                                    H
    2       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A   with the implementation of the provisions of the Act advised
    to act with promptitude and adhere to the time-schedule, so
    that innocent persons are not prosecuted and real culprits not
    left out.
      The Insecticide Inspector drew sample of insecticide
B manufactured by appellant company from the shop of
  appellant's dealer and sent it to the Regional Laboratory.
  The Regional Laboratory reported that the sample did not
  conform to ISi specifications. Notice of the report was
  sent to the appellant.
c        Pursuant to receipt of the report, appellant, in terms
    of s.24(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, intimated to the
    Insecticides Inspector its "intention to adduce evidence
    in controversion of the report", but no step was thereafter
    taken by the Insecticides Inspector.
D
      A complaint was subsequently filed against the
  appellant and its dealer under Section 29 of the
  Insecticides Act. However, meanwhile the shelf-life of the
  insecticide in question had expired. Appellant filed
E application for discharge under Section 245 CrPC which
  was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The
  order was upheld by the High Court in Criminal Revision.
         In the instant appeal, the questions before the Court
    for consideration were:
F        1) Whether by conveying its intention to lead
    evidence in controversion of the report, the appellant
    exercised its right to seek re-analysis of the sample from
    the Central Insecticides Laboratory, but was denied such
    right and;
G      2) Whether inasmuch as the shelf life of the sample
  of insecticide expired before the complaint was filed
  against the appellant, continuing criminal prosecution
  against the appellant would be a futile exercise and
  abuse of the process of Court and the appellant ought
H to be discharged.
 NORTHERN MINERAL LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND                  3
                   ANR.
    Allowing the appeal, the Court                                 A
      HELD:1.1. The Statute mandates disclosure of expiry
date of the insecticide. Insecticides are substances
specified in the Schedule to the Insecticides Act, 19n8
and from perusal thereof, it is evident that many of
substances with passage of time may lose its identity if           B
exposed or come 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. [Para 6] [10-E-
~                                                                  c
     1.2. From a plain reading of Section 24(3) of the
Insecticides Act, 1968 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         D
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           E
Section 24(3) of the Act, the court may of its own motion
or in its discretion at the req;..iest either of the complainant
or the accused cause the sample to be sent for analysis
to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. [Para 11] [14-G-
H; 15-A-B]                                                         F
      1.3. 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
i.>e conclusive evidence of the facts stated in its report G
looses its conclusive character. The Legislature has µsed
similar expression i.e. the "intention to adduce evidence.
in controversion of the report" in both sub-section (3) and
sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act, hence the
expression used in both the places has to be given one H
   4       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 8 S.C.R.

A 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, the intention of
B 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
c 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 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
0
  to state that it intends to get the sample analysed from
  the Central Insecticides Laboratory. Though the report
  of the Insecticides Analyst can be challenged on various
  grounds but the accused can not be compelled to
  disclose those grounds and expose his defence and he
E 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
F fructified. [Para 11] [15-B-H]
       1.4. From the language and the underlying object
  behind Sections 24(3) and (4) of the Act as also from the
  ratio of the earlier decisions of this Court, it is clear that
  mere notifying of intention to adduce evidence in
G 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
H
 NORTHERN MINERAL LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND              5
                   ANR.
analysis to Central Insecticides Laboratory. The mere         A
intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the
report, implies demand to send the sample to Central
Insecticides Laboratory for test and analysis. [Para 12)
[16-E-G]                    .
      1.5. Section 24(3) of the Act gives right to the accused B
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 the court where
proceeding in respect of the samples is pending. Further C
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. In the present case, no proceeding was
pending before any court, when the accused was served D
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 the Insecticide Inspector was obliged to
institute complaint forthwith and produce sample and E
request the court to send the sample for analysis and test
to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. The appellant did
whatever was possible for it. Its right has been defeated
by not sending the sample for analysis and report to
Central lm~ecticides Laboratory. It may be mentioned F
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 G
appellant having been defeated, allowing this criminal
prosecution against the appellant to continue shall be
futile and abuse of the process of court. [Para 13] [16-H;
17-A-E]
                                                              H
    6         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A       State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd. & Ors.
    (1999) 8 SCC 190; State of Punjab v. National Organic
    Chemical Industries Ltd. (1997) SCC (Crl.) 312 and Mis.
    Gupta Chemicals Pvt.' Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
    JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 516, relied on.
B      2. In the present case, 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. Section 24(3) and (4) of the
C Act obliges the Insecticide ~nalyst 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
o 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
E time-schedule, so that innocent persons are not
  prosecuted and real culprits not left out. [Para 14] [17-H;
  18-A-D]
         3. The impugned judgments of the High Court as
    also that of the Chief Judicial Magistrate refusing to
F   discharge the appellant are set aside and the appellant
    is discharged of its criminal liability. [Para 15] [18-D-E]
                           Case Law Reference:
        (1999) 8 sec 190          relied on             Para 5
G       (1997) sec (Crl.) 312     relied on             Para 7
        JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 516 relied on              Para 9
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 766 of 2003.

H
NORTHERN MINERAL LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND                      7
                  ANR.
    From the Judgment & Order dated 5.11.2001 of the High             A
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision
No. 170 of 2000.

     Arun Nehra, Shobha, Mohinder Thakur for the Appellant.

    P.K. Dey, Rashmi Malhotra, Rohitash S. Nagar, R.S.                B
Nagar, D.S. Mehra, B.V. Balaram Das for the Respondents.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    C.K. PRASAD, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an order             C
dated 5th November, 2001 passed by t:1e 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
~e~d.                                                                 D

      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           E
On 10th September, 1993, the Insecticide Inspector drew
sample of Monocrotophos 36 SL from the shop of the
appellant's dealer, Mis. Jindal Traders respondent no. 2 herein.
The aforesaid insecticide, sample of which was collected by
the Insecticide Inspector, was manufactured by the appellant          F
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             G
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
                                                                      H
     8      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A "intention of 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
B 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. Mis. Jindal
C 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 :

·D             "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
E        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 plea of the learned counsel
         for the accused that sample was drawn from the sealed
         container will be evaluated after adducing the evidence
F        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
G 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.
H
 NORTHERN MINERAL LTD. v. UNION Of INDIA AND                     9
           ANR. [C.K. PRASAD, J.]

While doing so, the High Court observed as follows:                  A

           'The upshot of the above discussion is that the wdght
    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
                                                                     8
    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"          C
    analysis by Central 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      D
    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         E
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 controversiori of the report
to Insecticides Inspector but had not specifically prayed for
analysis of the sample by the Central Insecticides Laboratory.       F

     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 · G
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 expiry of shelf-life. In
support of the submission, reliance has been placed o.n a
decision of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. H
    10       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A   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
B
         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
c        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
D        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."

E      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
  Analyst contains columns for the date of the manufacture and
F 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
G 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 cf the receipt of the report, its intention
  to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of the
H Regional Pesticides Laboratory in terms of Section 24(3) of the
NORTHERN MINERAL LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND                      11
          ANR. [C.K. PRASAD, J.]
Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). He      A
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)            B
only postulates the accused to notify to the Insecticide Inspector
or the Court that it intends to adduce evidence in 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                c
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
                                                                       0
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            E
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    F
    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 given. That such certificate by the Director of CIL has         G
    a proof of his defence to dislodge the conclusiveness
    attached to the report of the lnsectidde 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       H
    12      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A        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
         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:
c              "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
D        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
E        are pending that they intend 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."

F        9. Yet another decision on which reliance is placed is the
    decision of this Court in the case of Mis. 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
G        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
H        Central Insecticides Laboratory provided he
NORTHERN MINERAL LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND                   13
          ANR. [C.K. PRASAD, J.]
    communicates his intentions for the purpose within 28 days       A
    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               B
    appellants had intimated the insecticide inspector their
    intention to have the sample tested in the central
    insectici~es 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            c
    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 on the part of the inspector, it
                                                                     0
    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       E
    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,               F
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       G
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 :
                                                                     H
    14       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2010] 8 S.C.R.


A        "24. Report of Insecticide Analyst.-

         xxx xxx xxx xxx
               (3) Any document purporting to be a report signed
         by an Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts
B        stated therein, and such evidence shall be conclusive
         unless the person from wm,m 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
c        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
D
         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
E
          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
F        conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein."

               )()()(                  )()()(             )()()(   )()()(


       11. From a plain reading of Section 24(3) of the Act, it is
G 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.
H Section 24(4) of the Act provides that when an accused had
NORTHERN MINERAL LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND                      15
          ANR. [C.K. PRASAD, J.]
notified its intention of adducing evidence in controversion of        A
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              B
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         c
adduce evidence in 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     D
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        E
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             F
 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 compelled to disclose those grounds and expose his             G
 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.                      H
    16       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A          12. The decisions of this Court in the cases of National
     Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. (Supra), Unique Farmaid
     (P) Ltd. & Ors. (Supra) and Mis. 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
B 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
c 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 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
0
     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
E 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
F 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
G .Insecticides Laboratory for test and analysis.

       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
H controversion of the report before the Insecticide Inspector or
NORTHERN MINERAL LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND                    17
          ANR. [C.K. PRASAD, J.]
before· Court where proceeding in respect of the samples is           A
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,          B
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               c
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 mentioned herein that shelf life of the insecticides had
expired even prior to the filing of the complaint. The position       D
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       E
 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           F
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 1st November, ~ 993,
in reply whereof by letter dated 17th November, 1993 it
intimated its intention to adduce evidence in controversion of        G
the report. The shelf-life of the pesticide had not expired by that
time but expired in February 1994. However, permission to file
complaint was given on 23rd February, 1994 and the complaint
was actually filed on 16th March, 1994. Had the authority
                                                                      H
    18       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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
c s<i'11ple 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.
D       15. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned
    judgments of the High Court as also that of the Chief Judicial
    Magistrate refusing to discharge the appellant are set aside
    and the appellant is discharged of its criminal liability.

E B.B.B.                                              Appeal allowed.