Sample Analysis Report Of Central Insecticides Lab U/S 24(4) Of Insecticides Act Is 'Conclusive Evidence': Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that the sample analysis report received from the Central Insecticides Laboratory under Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 is a 'conclusive proof' of facts involved.Section 24(4) makes provision for a sampel to be sent for test or analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, which shall file its report within 30 days, in writing, signed by or under...
The Gujarat High Court has held that the sample analysis report received from the Central Insecticides Laboratory under Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 is a 'conclusive proof' of facts involved.
Section 24(4) makes provision for a sampel to be sent for test or analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, which shall file its report within 30 days, in writing, signed by or under the authority of the Director of the Laboratory and the report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.
A Bench comprising Justice Nikhil Kariel observed,
"Report of the Central Insecticides Laboratory would be final and whereas any report to the contrary would not have any bearing whatsoever on the issue more particularly since the statute itself denoting that the report of the Central Insecticides Laboratory shall be conclusive evidence of the fact."
The Court was hearing an application praying for quashing of two criminal cases pending before the CJM Bhavnagar for offences under Section 29(1)(c) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and for violation of Sections 3(b), 17(1)(c) and 18(1)(g) of the Act.
The impugned FIR was filed pursuant to a sample of insecticide from the Applicant's stock being sent to the Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, where it was found that the sample did not conform to the specifications laid down in the Active Ingredient Test and therefore, the item was misbranded.
Summons were issued to the Applicant and subsequently, the Applicant filed an application under Section 24 of the Insecticides Act praying for the sample to be sent for re-analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory.
It was averred that post the re-analysis, the ingredient in question was found to be within conforming standards. It was contended that under Section 24(4) of the Act, the Central Insecticides Laboratory report was signed by the authority of the Director of the Laboratory and therefore, this amounted to 'conclusive evidence'.
Reliance was placed on Smt. Somawanti and Ors. Vs. Atma Ram Chadha and Anr., (1963) 2 SCR 774 to argue that if the analysis report is sought to be controverted, then it is open for such accused to request the Magistrate to send the sample for re-analysis. Upon re-analysis, the report will be treated as final as against the contrary report of the Insecticides Analyst.
In Somawanti (supra) it was held that where the law makes a fact conclusive proof of another the fact stands proved and the Court must proceed on that basis.
Justice Kariel noted the distinction in the reports published by the Regional Laboratory and the Central Laboratory and thereafter referred to Section 24(4) of the Act to conclude that the report received from the Central Laboratory would be considered as conclusive evidence of the facts.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings before the CJM.
Case Title: GODREJ AGROVET LIMITED & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 156
Case No: R/SCR.A/5651/2014