2021 (8) TMI 1412 - SC - Indian Laws

SC quashes insecticide misbranding complaint filed beyond three-year limitation period under Sections 17, 18, 33

Cheminova India Ltd. and Ors. Versus State of Punjab and Ors.

The SC allowed the appeal and quashed the complaint for misbranding of insecticide against the accused. The Court held that the complaint filed on ... Time limitation - Misbranding - Accused have approached the High Court seeking quashing of the complaint mainly on the ground that the complaint was ex facie barred by limitation and procedure prescribed Under Section 24 was not followed - HELD THAT:- In view of the undisputed fact that after drawing the sample from the dealer on 10.02.2011 report of analysis was received from the Insecticide Testing Laboratory at Ludhiana on 14.03.2011, the complaint filed is barred by limitation. It is not in dispute that report from Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana was received by the Inspector on 14.03.2011. Section 29 of the Act deals with the 'offences and punishment'. The Appellants are sought to be prosecuted on the ground of misbranding of the insecticide, i.e., Trizophos 40% E.C. It is the allegation in the complaint that upon analysis of the sample, same was found to contain active ingredient to the extent of 34.70% only as against the labelled declaration of 40%. Thus, it is a case of 'misbranding' within the meaning of Section 3(k)(i) of the Act and selling of such misbranded item is in violation of Sections 17, 18, and 33 punishable Under Section 29 of the Act. In the present case, it is not in dispute, the complainant-2nd Respondent has received the report of analysis on 14.03.2011 from the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana and the complaint was lodged on 25.03.2014 which is beyond a period of three years from 14.03.2011. The only submission of the learned Counsel for the State is that further report from the Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory was received on 09.12.2011 which is the conclusive evidence of the facts, as such, the complaint is within the period of limitation. Such submission made by learned Counsel for the State is not convincing - the complaint filed is barred by limitation and allowing the proceedings to go on, on such complaint, which is ex facie barred by limitation is nothing but amounts to abuse of process of law. Though the learned Counsel has also raised other grounds in support of quashing, as it is persuading to accept his submission that complaint filed is barred by limitation, it is not necessary to deal with such other grounds raised. The impugned order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh is set aside - appeal allowed. Issues:1. Barred by limitation - Complaint filed under the Insecticides Act, 19682. Procedure under Section 24 not followed3. Misbranding allegations against the Appellants4. Violation of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureAnalysis:Issue 1: Barred by limitation - Complaint filed under the Insecticides Act, 1968The case involved a complaint filed against the Appellants for misbranding of insecticides under the Insecticides Act, 1968. The Appellants contended that the complaint was barred by limitation due to abnormal delays in testing the samples. The High Court dismissed the petition concerning the Appellants, but quashed the proceedings for another party. The Supreme Court, after thorough examination, held that the complaint was indeed barred by limitation as the report from the Insecticide Testing Laboratory was received on 14.03.2011, and the complaint was lodged on 25.03.2014, beyond the three-year limitation period. The Court emphasized that the period of limitation commenced from the date of the offense, i.e., the date of the initial report, and not from the subsequent report received later.Issue 2: Procedure under Section 24 not followedThe Appellants also argued that the procedure prescribed under Section 24 of the Act was not adhered to, as there were delays in obtaining the re-analysis report. The Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Faridabad, delayed the re-analysis report by seven months, violating Section 24(4) of the Act. However, the Court primarily focused on the limitation aspect and did not delve into the procedural violations in detail due to the clear limitation issue.Issue 3: Misbranding allegations against the AppellantsThe complaint alleged misbranding of an insecticide by the Appellants, which was a violation of Sections 17, 18, and 33 punishable under Section 29 of the Act. The Court noted that the misbranding was based on the discrepancy in the active ingredient content compared to the labeled declaration. The judgment highlighted the severity of the offense, with potential imprisonment and fines outlined under Section 29 for such violations.Issue 4: Violation of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureThe Appellants raised concerns about the Magistrate not following the procedure prescribed under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, this issue was not extensively discussed in the judgment as the primary focus was on the limitation aspect, which led to the quashing of the complaint.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and quashing the complaint filed by the second Respondent against the Appellants due to being barred by limitation. The Court emphasized the significance of adhering to statutory timelines and the commencement of the limitation period from the date of the offense for such legal proceedings.