- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8002 CRL.P No. 11538 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11538 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. O.S. DAYANANDA S/O SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S VITAL AGRI SOLUTION, OFFICE OF SY NO.117/8, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 064. 2. O S DAYANANDA S/O SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S PRAGATHI AGRO INPUTS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.35, GOPI BUILDING, 5TH B MAIN HEBBAL, BANGALORE 560 024. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NITIN RAMESH.,ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, RMC LING ROAD, BHARATH COLONY, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 003. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8002 CRL.P No. 11538 of 2023 THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INSOFAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED IN C.MISC.NO.73/2016 PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DAVANAGERE EARLIER ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE J.M.F.C I COURT, DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 24(4) AND 5 OF THE INSECTICIDES ACT, 1986 AT ANNEXURES – A AND B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.Misc.No.73/2016 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Davangere, seek quashing of the aforesaid proceedings instituted by the respondent – complainant under Section 24(4) and 5 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short ‘the said Act of 1968’) and for other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the aforesaid C.Misc.73/2016 in his capacity as proprietor of M/s.Vital Agri Solutions and M/s.Pragathi Agro Inputs, respectively. It is an undisputed fact borne out from the material on record that the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8002 CRL.P No. 11538 of 2023 petitioners are manufacturers and dealers of bio pesticides, fertilizers etc., and have obtained registration under the KVAT Act. On 02.05.2015, the respondent carried out inspection at the retail outlets and samples of a product “BPH Tension Free” were collected and sent for testing to the National Institute of Plant Health Management, Hyderabad which is a notified Central Insecticide Laboratory, which issued / submitted a report dated 14.05.2015 to the effect that out of 205 parameters, only one element viz., “Imidaclopride” was beyond permissible limits. 4. Subsequently, on 27.06.2025, respondent – complainant filed a private complaint in C.Misc.73/2016 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. requesting the samples to be sent for re- testing / re-analysis under Sections 24(4) and 5 of the said Act of 1968. Aggrieved by the impugned proceedings, petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. The respondent has contested the petition and sought for dismissal of the same. 5. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to extract Sections 24(4) and 5 of the said Act of 1968 which read as under:- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8002 CRL.P No. 11538 of 2023 Section 24(4) and (5) of Insecticides Act “(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, 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. (5) The cost of a test or analysis made by the Central Insecticides Laboratory under sub-section (4) shall be paid by the complainant or the accused, as the court shall direct.” A bare / plain perusal and reading of the aforesaid provisions will indicate that it is only in the event samples have not been already tested or analysed by a Central Insecticides Laboratory that either the petitioner / accused or the respondent / complainant would be entitled to make a request before the learned Magistrate by way of a private complaint and seek re-testing / re-analysis of the samples; in other words, if the samples have already been - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8002 CRL.P No. 11538 of 2023 tested by a notified Central Insecticides Laboratory, neither the complainant nor the accused would be entitled to seek re-testing / re-analysis of the said sample by sending the same once again to the notified Central Insecticides Laboratory; to put it differently, the right of the complainant or the accused to notify his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of the insecticide analyst’s report and request for re-testing / re-analysis in terms of Sections 24(3) and 24(4) would arise only if in the first instance, the samples were not sent to a notified Central Insecticides Laboratory but to any other laboratory. 6. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the samples were sent to National Institute of Plant Health Management, Hyderabad, which is a notified Central Insecticide Laboratory and submitted a report in favour of the petitioners. It follows therefrom that having sent the sample to a notified Central Insecticide Laboratory for testing / analysis, the respondent was not entitled to institute the impugned proceedings seeking re-testing / re-analysis of the very same sample by way of the impugned proceedings, which is impermisslbe in law in the light of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8002 CRL.P No. 11538 of 2023 aforesaid statutory provisions and on this ground alone, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed. 7. The material on record also discloses that the samples which were collected on 02.05.2015 had admittedly expired during April, 2018 as can be seen from the test report submitted / issued by the National Institute of Plant Health Management, Hyderabad and consequently, the very request / prayer of the respondent for re-testing / re-analysis has been rendered infructuous and as such, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed on this ground also. 8. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned proceedings in C.Misc.73/2016 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Davangere insofar as the petitioners are concerned are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.