State vs Ms Agrimas

State Vs Ms Agrimas Chemicals Ltd H-2, M.I.D.C

Case Details

Case Type	COMA
Filing Number	3350/2013
Registration Number	983/2013
Filing Date	13-08-2008
Registration Date	13-08-2008

First Hearing Date	02nd March 2012
Decision Date	07th October 2016
Case Status	Case Disposed
Court Number and Judge	8-Chief Judicial Magistrate;
Nature of Disposal	Contested--Acquitted;

Petitioners & Respondents

Petitioner

State, ;

Petitioner Advocate

App For State;

Respondent Name

Ms Sandha Pesticides Fertilizers, Daler Singh, Sant Lal Tara Chand, Parveen Kumar, Ms Agrimas Chemic Show more..

Order Details

Order Date

07-06-2014

123 Present : APP for the State Personal presence of accused VK Fotedar already exemped till further orders. Proceeding against amused Anad Fedric stayed by the Hon'ble High court. Counsel for accused Manoj, Rajesh Parveen Kumar , Sant Lal and Rajneesh Kumar. Accused Daler Singh on bail. Ld. Presiding Officer is availing summer vacation. Accused Manoj, Rajesh Parveen Kumar , Sant Lal and Rajneesh Kumar have not come present. On their behalf an applciation seeking their exemption has been received which is allowed in view of the grounds mentio ned therein. Their presence is exempted for today. Adjourned to 14.8.2014 for consideration of notice Sd/- Dt: 7.6.2014. (Gurpreet Kaur ) Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur (Duty)

Order Date

14-08-2014

123 Present: APP for the State. Personal appearance of accused VK Fotedar and Sant Lal exempted till further order. Accused Suni Sekhi and Srikant Mahajan declared PO vide order dated 07.10.2013. Proceeding agianst accused Anand Fedric stayed by Hon'ble High Court. Accused Daler Singh, Rajesh Parveen Kumar and Manoj on bail with counsel. Consideration not addressed. On the request of learned counsel for accused, case stands adjourned to 10.09.2014 for consideration on notice. DT: 14.08.2014 (Ravi Inder Kaur) *Sanjeev Kumar* CJM/Ferozepur

Order Date

10-09-2014

123 CAO Vs M/S Sandhu Pesticides Present: APP for the State. Personal appearance of accused VK Fotedar and Sant Lal exempted till further order. Accused Sunil Sekhi and Srikant Mahajan declared PO vide order dated 7.10.2013. Proceeding against accused Anand Fedric stayed by Hon'ble High Court. Accused Daler Singh, Rajesh Parveen Kumar and Manoj Kumar on bail with counsel. In view of order endst No.8634/EB dated 21.08.2014 passed by Ld.District & Sessions Judge, Ferozepur file put up before me. Today the present case is fixed for consideration on notice. Consideration not addressed. On request, case stands adjourned to 23.9.2014 for consideration on notice. Ld.counsel for accused are directed to produce the accused VK Fotedar and Sant Lal on next date of hearing. Dated: 10.9.2014 (Jasveer Singh) *Sanjeev Kumar* Judicial Magistrate/Abohar (Under training at Ferozepur)

Order Date

23-09-2014

123 CAO Vs M/s Sandhu Pesticides Present: APP for the State. Proceeding against accused Anand Fedric stayed by Hon'ble High Court. Accused Daler Singh, Parveen Kumar, Sant Lal, Manoj Kumar, VK Fotedar and Rajnish Kumar on bail with counsel Sh.BL Malhotra,Adv. Heard. From the perusal of the complaint and accompanying documents, a prima facie case under Sections 3(k)(i) 17,18 and 33 punishable under Section 29 of Insecticide Act, 1968 with rules 27(5) of Insecticide Act is made out against the accused and notice served accordingly to which they did not plead guilty and claim trial. Case stands adjourned to 18.10.2014 for evidence of complainant/ prosecution. Dt: 23.09.2014 (Ravi Inder Kaur) CJM/FZR

Order Date

18-10-2014

123 CAO Vs M/S Sandhu Pesticides Present: APP for the State. Personal appearance of accused VK Fotedar and Sant Lal exempted till further order. Accused Sunil Sethi and Srikant Mahajan declared PO vide order dated 07.10.2013. Proceeding against accused Anand Fedric stayed by Hon'ble High Court. Accused Manoj Kumar, Daler Singh and Rajesh Parveen on bail with counsel. File put up before me being Duty Magistrate as Ld.Chief Judicial Magistrate has gone to Chandigarh to participate in the Regional Colloquium. On request, the case is adjourned to 22.11.2014 for evidence of complainant/prosecution as per previous order. Dated: 18.10.2014 (Monika Lamba) JMIC/Ferozepur (Duty)

Order Date

25-11-2014

123 CAO Vs M/S Sandhu Pesticides Present: APP for the State. Accused Rajneesh absent. Accused Manoj and Daler Singh on bail with counsel. Personal appearance of accused VK Fotedar and Sant Lal exempted till further order. Accused Sunil Sethi and Srikant Mahajan declared PO vide order dated 07.10.2013 Proceeding against accused Anand Fedric Stayed by Hon'ble High Court. File taken up today as 22.11.2014 was declared being Fourth Saturday. (23.11.2014 was Sunday and 24.11.2014 was declared holiday). Accused Rajneesh is absent without any intimation. Case called several times but neither accused Rajneesh nor his counsel came present. Hence bail order of accused Rajneesh is canceled. Bail bonds and surety bonds stands forfeited to the State. Let accused Rajneesh is ordered to be summoned through non bailable warrant of arrest for 19.01.2015. Notice to surety be also issued for date fixed. Dated: 25.11.2014 (Ravi Inder Kaur) *Sanjeev Kumar* CJM/Ferozepur

Order Date

19-01-2015

123 CAO Vs M/S Sandhu Pesticides Present: APP for the State. Accused Rajneesh in person. Accused Manoj and Daler Singh on bail with counsel. Personal appearance of accused VK Fotedar and Sant Lal exempted till further oder. Accused Sunil Sethi and Srikant Mahajan declared PO vide order dated 7.10.2013. Proceeding against accused Anand Fedric stayed by Hon'ble High Court. Accused Rajnish Kumar himself appeared before the court and moved application for surrender and bail and for restoring the bail bonds and surety bonds. It is alleged that earlier the case was fixed for 22.11.2014 and accused Rajnish Kumar was present but could not appear before the court when the case was called. Lateron he came to know that case was adjourn to 19.1.2015 and on inquiry accused came to know that he was marked absent. The absence of applicant/accused is not intentional or deliberate. It is prayed for restoring the bail bonds and surety bonds. After hearing the contention of learned counsel for accused accused/applicant and after gone through the case file, I am of the considered opinion that accused Rajnish was absent for one date though the previous zimni order clarifies that he is appearing before the court on each and every date. Keeping in view the previous conduct of accused as well as for the reason that he himself surrender before the court, the present application is allowed and the bail bonds and surety bonds which had been previously canceled are ordered to be restored with the direction that accused/applicant be careful in future. To come up on 20.2.2015 for evidence of the prosecution. Pronounced: Dated: 19.01.2015 (Ravi Inder Kaur) *Sanjeev Kumar* Chief Judicial Magistrate Ferozepur

Order Date

20-02-2015

123 CAO Vs M/S Sandhu Pesticides Present: APP for the State. Sh.BL Malhotra,ADv.for accused Manoj Dua. Accused Daler Singh and Rajnessh on bail with counsel. Personal appearance of accused VK Fotedar and Sant Lal exempted till further order. Accused Sunil Sethi, Srikant Mahajan declared PO vide order dated 07.10.2013. Proceeding against accused Anand Fedric stayed by Hon'ble High Court. An exemption application on behalf of accused Manoj Dua moved. The same is allowed for today only on the grounds mentioned therein. No evidence of prosecution is present. On request, the case is adjourned to 10.03.2015 for evidence of prosecution. Dated: 20.02.2015 (Ravi Inder Kaur) *Sanjeev Kumar* CJM/Ferozepur

Order Date

10-03-2015

123 CAO Vs M/S Sandhu Pesticides Present: APP for the State. Accused Rajnesh on bail with counsel. Sh.BL Malhotra,Adv.for accused Daler Singh and Manoj Dua. Personal appearance of accused VD Fotedar and Sant Lal exempted till further order. Accused Sunil Sethi, Srikant Mahajan declared PO vide order dt.7.10.2013. Proceedings against accused Anand Fedric stayed by hon'ble High Court. An exemption application on behalf of accused Daler Singh and Manoj Dua moved. The same is allowed for today only on the grounds mentioned therein. No PW is present. On the request of APP, remaining PWs be summoned for 20.04.2015. Dated: 10.03.2015 (Ravi Inder Kaur) *Sanjeev Kumar* CJM/Ferozepur

Order Date

20-04-2015

123 CAO Vs M/S Sandhu Pesticides Present: APP for the State. Accused Rajnesh, Daler Singh and Manoj Dua on bail. with counsel Sh.BL Malhotra,Adv. Personal appearance of accused VD Fotedar and Sant Lal exempted till further order. Accused Sunil Sethi, Srikant Mahajan declared PO vide order dated 07.10.2013. Proceeding against accused Anand Fedric stayed by Hon'ble High Court. No PW is present. Even summons issued to witnesses received back unserved. On the request of APP, remaining PWs be summoned for 11.06.2015. Dated: 20.04.2015 (Ravi Inder Kaur) *Sanjeev Kumar* CJM/Ferozepur

Order Date

11-06-2015

123 CAO Vs M/S Sandhu Pesticides Present: APP for the State. Accused Rajnesh, Daler Singh and Manoj Dua on bail with counsel Sh.BL Malhotra,Adv. Personal apperance of accused VD Fotedar and Sant Lal exempted till further order. Accused Sunil Sethi, Srikant Mahajan declared P.O vide order dated 07.10.2013. Proceeding against accused Anand Fedric statyed by Hon'ble High Court. No PW is present. Even summons issued to Pws not received back. On the request of APP, remaining witnesses be summoned for 31.8.2015. Dated: 11.06.2015 (Ravi Inder Kaur) SJK CJM/Ferozepur

Order Date

31-08-2015

CAO Vs M/s Sandhu Pesticides Present: APP for the State. Accused Rajnesh Daler Singh and Manoj dua on bail with counsel Sh. B.L. Malhotra, Adv. Personal appearance of accused V.D Fotedar and Sant lal exempted till further order. Accused Sunil Sethi, Srikant Mahajan declared P.O vide order dated 07.10.2013. Proceedings against accused Anand Fedric styaed by Hon'ble High Court. PW-1 Resham Singh is present and examined. No other PW is present nor served. Remaining PW's be again summoned for 16.09.2015. Dated: 31.08.2015 (Ravi Inder Kaur) BAK CJM/FZR

Order Date

16-10-2015

CAO Vs M/s Sandhu Pesticides Present: APP for the State. Sh. B.L. Malhotra, Adv. Counsel for accused Rajnesh Daler Singh and Manoj dua. Personal appearance of accused V.D Fotedar and Sant lal exempted till further order. Accused Sunil Sethi, Srikant Mahajan declared P.O vide order dated 07.10.2013. Proceedings against accused Anand Fedric stayed by Hon'ble High Court. Today an exemption application on behalf of the accused Rajnesh Daler Singh and Manoj Dua has been filed. Heard. Due to reasons mentioned therein, personal presence of the above named accused is exempted for today only. No other PW is present. Summons issued to witness Gurmeet Singh not received back. PW Gurmeet Singh and remaining PW's be again summoned for 09.12.2015. Dated: 16.10.2015 (Ravi Inder Kaur) BAK CJM/Ferozepur

Order Date

09-12-2015

CAO Vs M/s Sandhu Pesticides Present: APP for the State. Sh. B.L. Malhotra, Adv. Counsel for accused Daler Singh. Accused Rajneesh and Manoj Dua on bail with counsel Sh. B.L. Malhotra, Adv. Personal appearance of accused V.D Fotedar and Sant lal exempted till further order. Accused Sunil Sethi, Srikant Mahajan declared P.O vide order dated 07.10.2013. Proceedings against accused Anand Fedric stayed by Hon'ble High Court. Today an exemption application on behalf of the accused Daler Singh has been filed. Heard. Due to reasons mentioned therein, personal presence of the above named accused is exempted for today only. No other PW is present. Summons issued to witness Gurmeet Singh received back unserved. PW Gurmeet Singh and entire remaining PW's be again summoned for 11.02.2016. Dated: 09.12.2015 (Ravi Inder Kaur) BAK CJM/Ferozepur

Order Date

16-04-2016

CAO Vs. M/s Sandhu Fertilizer etc. Present: APP for the State. Accused Manoj Kumar and Daler Singh on bail with counsel. Sh.B.L.Malhotra, Adv.,counsel for accused Rajneesh Kumar accused. Personal appearance of accused V.K.Fotedar exempted till further orders. Proceedings against accused Anand Fedric stayed by Hon'ble High Court. File taken up today before me being Duty Magistrate as the Ld.Presiding Officer is on leave today. An application for exemption of personal appearance of accused Rajneesh Kumar moved. In view of the reason mentioned in the application, the personal appearance of accused Rajneesh Kumar is exempted for today only. Further order not received from Hon'ble High Court. The same be awaited till 3.6.2016. Dated:16.04.2016. (Varinder Kumar) BAK JMIC/Ferozepur. (Duty)

Order Date

03-06-2016

CAO Versus M/s Sandha Fertilizer etc. Present: Sh.Kuldeep Sahni, APP for the State. Accused Manoj Kumar, Rajneesh & Daler Singh on bail with counsel. Personal appearance of accused No.3 and 4 exempted till further orders. Accused No.6(i) P.O. Accused No.6(ii) Proceedings quashed on 28.01.2013. Presence of accused No.7 V.K.Fotedar, exempted. Accused No.7(iii) Sunil Sethi P.O. File put before me being Duty Magistrate as the learned Presiding Officer is availing Summer vacations. Now remaining Pws be summoned for 22.07.2016. Dated:03.06.2016. (Deepal Singh) JMIC, Ferozepur. (Duty)

Order Date

22-07-2016

CAO Vs Sandhu Fertilizer etc. Present: Sh. Kuldeep Sahni, Ld. APP for the State. Accused Manoj Kumar, Rajneesh & Daler Singh on bail. Personal appearance of accused No. 3 and 4 exempted till further orders. Accused No. 6(i) P.O. Accused No. 6(ii) proceedings quashed on 28.01.2013. Presence of the accused No. 7 V.K. Fotedar, exempted. Accused No. 7(iii) Sunil Sethi P.O. No PW is present nor served. Entire all PW's be again summoned for 12.08.2016 through SSP and Ld. APP. Last opportunity is granted. Dt. 22.07.2016. (Tripat Jot Kaur) BAK CJM/Ferozepur.

Order Date

22-08-2016

CAO Vs M/s Sandha Pesticides etc. Present: Sh. Kuldeep Sahni, Ld. APP for the State. Accused Manoj Kumar, Rajneesh & Daler Singh on bail. Personal appearance of accused No. 3 and 4 exempted till further orders. Accused No. 6(i) P.O. Accused No. 6(ii) proceedings quashed on 28.01.2013. Presence of the accused No. 7 V.K. Fotedar, exempted. Accused No. 7(iii) Sunil Sethi P.O. Statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C not recorded for want of presence of all accused. On request of counsel for the accused, the case stands adjourned to 02.09.2016 for recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Ld. Counsel for the accused is directed to produce all accused on the date fixed. Dated: 22.08.2016. (Tripat Jot Kaur) BAK CJM/Ferozepur

Order Date

02-09-2016

CAO Vs M/s Sandha Pesticides etc. Present: Sh. Kuldeep Sahni, Ld. APP for the State. Accused Manoj Kumar, Rajneesh & Daler Singh on bail. Personal appearance of accused No. 3 and 4 exempted till further orders. Accused No. 6(i) P.O. Accused No. 6(ii) proceedings quashed on 28.01.2013. Presence of the accused No. 7 V.K. Fotedar, exempted. Accused No. 7(iii) Sunil Sethi P.O. Statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C not recorded for want of presence of all accused. On request of counsel for the accused, the case stands adjourned to 14.09.2016 for recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Ld. Counsel for the accused is directed to produce all accused on the date fixed. Dated: 02.09.2016. (Tripat Jot Kaur) BAK CJM/Ferozepur

Order Date

14-09-2016

CAO VS M/S SIDHU PESTICIDE ETC 983 of 2013 Present: Sh.Balwinder Singh, APP for the State. Accused Manoj Kumar, Rajneesh and Daler Singh on bail Personal appearance of the accused No. and 4 exempted till further order. Accused No.6(1)PO Accused 6(11) proceedings No. V.K. Fotedar exempted Accused No.7(ii) Sunil Sethi PO Statements of accused Under section 313 Cr.P.C recorded. On request, case is now adjourned to 21.09.2016 for defence evidence, if any otherwise for arguments. Dated:14.09.2016 AK (Tripatjot Kaur) CJM/Ferozepur

Order Date	21-09-2016

Final Order Judgement

Order Date

07-10-2016

21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." In the court of Mrs. Tripat Jot Kaur, PCS, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur. Crl. Complaint Case No.280-1 of 13.08.08 C.I.S. No.COMA/983/2013 Date of Decision:07.10.2016. State through Sh. Gurmeet Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Guruhar Sahai, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Ferozepur. ......................Complainant. VERSUS 1. M/s Sandha Pesticides & Fertilizers, Village Pindi, Block Guruhar Sahai, District Ferozepur, through its proprietor Sh. Daler Singh. 2. Daler Singh son of Sohan Singh, Proprietor and responsible person of M/s Sandha Pesticides & Fertilizers, Village Pindi, Block Guruhar Sahai, District Ferozepur. 3. M/s Sant Lal Tara Chand, Guruharsahai, Distributor through Parveen Kumar & Sh. Sant Lal, Prop. & Partner. 4. Parveen Kumar son of Tara Chand and Sant Lal son of Bal Mukand, partner and responsible person of M/s Sant Lal Tara Chand, Guruharsahai. 5. M/s Agrimas Chemical Ltd., H-2, MIDC, Industrial Area, Taloja, District Raigarh (Maharashtra), through Sh.Sirikant Mahajan s/o Prabhakar Mahajan, r/o A-73, Industrial Area, Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar, UP 203205, responsible officer quality control, Sh. Lakhan Singh Chaudhary son of Mohar Singh Chaudhary, r/o # 1160, Sector 18, Faridabad (Haryana) responsible officer for Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." Conduct of business, Manoj Kumar son of Lal Chand r/o # 165, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Bathinda, Punjab, Godown incharge of godown No.1, KC Complex, Malout Road, Bathinda 151001, Anand Fedrik son of Jamej Fedrik, r/o # 335, Kailash Tower-1, Mount Kailash, New Delhi-110048, Directors of the company. 6. Sirikant Mahajan son of Prabhakar Mahajan, r/o A-73, Industrial Area, Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar, UP 203205, responsible officer quality control, Lakhan Singh Chaudhary son of Mohar Singh Chaudhary, r/o # 1160, Sector 18, Faridabad (Haryana) responsible officer for Conduct of business, Manoj Kumar son of Lal Chand r/o # 165, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Bathinda, Punjab, Godown incharge of godown No.1, KC Complex, Malout Road, Bathinda 151001, Anand Fedrik son of Jamej Fedrik, r/o # 335, Kailash Tower-1, Mount Kailash, New Delhi-110048, Directors of the company M/s Agrimas Chemical Ltd., H-2, MIDC, Industrial Area, Taloja, District Raigarh (Maharashtra). 7. M/s Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., # 6, Devika Tower, Nehru Palace, New Delhi Registered office at Village Gaepan, P Simlia District Kota, Rajasthan through V.K. Fotedar son of S.L. Fotedar, r/o Flat No.312, New Delhi Apartments, Vasundra Enclave, Delhi 110096 responsible for conduct of business, Rajnish Kumar son of Darshan Kumar r/o Bibi Wala Road, Street No.3, Bathinda, Punjab Godown Incharge at M/s Chambal Fertilizers & Chemical Ltd., Plot No.28, New Grain Market, Bathinda, and Sunil Sethi, MD officer of Company M/s Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., # Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." 6, Devika Tower, Nehru Palace, New Delhi. 8. V.K. Fotedar son of S.L. Fotedar, r/o Flat No.312, New Delhi Apartments, Vasundra Enclave, Delhi 110096 responsible for conduct of business, Rajnish Kumar son of Darshan Kumar r/o Bibi Wala Road, Street No.3, Bathinda, Punjab Godown Incharge at M/s Chambal Fertilizers & Chemical Ltd., Plot No.28, New Grain Market, Bathinda, and Sunil Sethi, MD, responsible officer of Company M/s Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., # 6, Devika Tower, Nehru Palace, New Delhi, registered officer at village Gadepan, PO Simlia, District Kota, Rajasthan. ........................Accused. Complaint Under Section 3 (k) (i), 17, 18 and 33 Punishable under section 29 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 with rules 27(5) of Insecticides Rules, 1971. ******* Present:Sh. Balwinder Singh, APP for State/Complainant Accused Daler Singh, Sant Lal, Manoj Kumar, V.K. Fotedar, Parveen Kumar and Rajneesh Kumar on bail represented by Sh.B.L.Malhotra Advocate. Accused No.6 (i) & 7(ii) PO Proceedings against accused No.6(ii) already quashed. J U D G M E N T This judgment disposes of complaint under Sections 3 (k) (I), 17,18 and 33 Punishable under section 29 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 with rules 27(5) of Insecticides Rules, 1971, filed by State Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." through Gurmeet Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Guruhar Sahai, against the accused persons named above. 2. It has been averred in the complaint that complainant Gurmeet Singh, Insecticide Inspector, posted at Guruhar Sahai, is authorized to make this complaint, under clause 27 of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 and also being a public servant under section 21 of the IPC. That M/S Sandha Pesticides & Fertilizers, Village Pindi, Block Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur is dealing in pesticides/ insecticides/ weedicide, holding a license for the purpose issued by the licensing authority. Daler Singh, son of Sohan Singh, being its sole proprietor, was responsible for the conduct of the business of pesticides/ insecticides/weedicides. As per the Punjab Govrnment Notification No. SO/90/CA-46/68/S-20/91, dated 30.10.1991, issued under section 20 of the Insecticide Act, 1968, the complainant is appointed/notified as Insecticide Inspector under the Act. It has been further alleged that vide the above referred notification of the Punjab Government, the complainant, along with Teja Singh, Block Agricultural Officer, Guruhar Sahai, and Jaswinder Singh ADO, in performance of the official duties, in exercise of powers conferred upon him, visited the Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." shop of M/S Sandha Pesticides & Fertilizers, on 28.07.05. Daler Singh, Sole Proprietor of the firm, was present at the time of inspection. On intimation to him in writing that the complainant is an Insecticide Inspector, Guruhar Sahai, he inspected the shop and stock register in respect of Cartap Hydrochloride 4% G. There was 160x5 kgs of Cartap Hydrochloride 4% G in 5 kg packing manufactured by M/s Agrimas Chemicals Ltd., Bathinda, in his stock register, which was lying in his premises. Then one closed packing bag, weighing 5 kg of Cartap Hydrochloride 4% G bearing batch No.0504050 having manufacturing date April-2005 and expiry date March, 2007 was taken at random, for the purpose of analysis and then the complainant prepared three samples out of the said packing, each measuring 250 gms of Cartap Hydro Chloride as G, which was further put in separate dry and clean polythene bag and thereafter, the said samples, alongwith seizure memo was put in cloth bag and the sample was sealed with the seal II AGR GHS. The said seizure memo was prepared and the same was signed by the complainant and seal was put on the said seizure memo. The said seizure memo was also signed by Teja Singh, BAO and Daler Singh son of Sohan Singh. One sealed sample was handed over to Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." Daler Singh and receipt was taken, in lieu of the sample taken. The cost of the sample was paid to the dealer, which he tendered. The sample was taken according to the procedure laid down under the Insecticides Act, 1968 vide section 22(5) read with rules 33 and 34 of the Act. It is further averred that two sealed samples were deposited with Resham Singh, ADO office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur, on 29.07.05 by Pitamber Lal ASI vide letter No.413 and the Chief Agriculture Officer send the one sealed sample to Insecticide Testing Lab Amritsar through Sh. Suresh Kumar, ASI, vide letter No.33 dated 29.07.05 and remaining one sealed sample was kept in the office in the custody of Resham Singh ADO and it was not tampered throughout. From the analysis report dated 18.08.05 Ex.P6, the sample was declared misbranded with remarks "the sample does not confirm to IS specifications with respect of its percent active ingredient contents requirements, hence the sample is misbranded" by Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory Amritsar. As the sample is containing 3.60% instead of 4% G. Hence the sample was declared misbranded under section 3(k)(i) of the Insecticide Act, 1968. As the sample could not meet the label claim of the packet of Cartap Hydrochloride 4% G Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." as required. It has been further alleged that copies of the analysis report were delivered to the dealer and manufacturer, vide registered letters number 7518 dt. 24.08.05 and 7499 dt. 24.08.05 respectively. It is further averred that the dealer M/s Sandha Pesticides & Fertilizers Village Pindi, has availed benefit of retesting the sample u/s 24 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 from the CAO, Ferozepur which was sent to Central Insecticide Testing Lab, Faridabad with the permission of CAO but the same was also declared as misbranded being having 3.26% instead of 4% active ingredients contents. It is further alleged that the dealer, marketer and the manufacturer are under legal obligation to sell, manufacture and supply this misbranded insecticides in contravention of provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968, Rule 1971 and they have committed offence under sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 by selling, stocking and manufacturing misbranded pesticides. Hence, the present complaint. 3. On notice, the accused put in appearance and on their appearance, copies of complaint along with other documents as relied upon by the complainant were supplied to the accused free of costs as required under section 208 Cr.P.C. Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." 4. Finding a prima facie case against the accused persons under sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33 punishable under section 29 of the Insecticides Act, notice of accusation was served upon the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Resham Singh, Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur, PW2 Gurmeet Singh, Agriculture Officer. Thereafter, despite availing the numerous opportunities, the prosecution failed to conclude the evidence, this court was constrained to close the prosecution evidence by order. 6. After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they denied all the incriminating material put to them. They stated that they are innocent and false case has been planted against them. Accused Daler Singh, Sant Lal and Parveen Kumar took plea that they are licensees and their licenses were valid upto drawing sample, during the course of the business. Accused Manoj Kumar, V.K. Fotedar and Rajnish Kumar took plea that they are not responsible persons of the company for conducting its business and affairs and the said insecticide was not manufactured under their supervision and they are not incharge of the Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." quality control of product in question. They further took plea that they have no direct/indirect concern with the manufacturing unit of the company. The accused offered to lead defence evidence but they closed the same without leading any evidence. 7. I have heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and learned defence counsel for the accused and have gone through the case file, very minutely. 8. The only point of determination in the present case is as under:- “Whether on 28.07.05 in the shop of M/s Sandha Pesticides & Fertilizers, Village Pindi, Block Guruharsahai, accused Daler Singh, being the sole proprietor was found in possession of 160x5 kgs of Cartap Hydrochloride 4% G in 5 kg packing in the stock of the firm, which was manufactured by M/s Agrimas Chemical Pvt.Ltd. Bathinda, and the same was found misbranded and thereby all the accused committed offence under Section 3(k)(i) 17, 18, 33 punishable under section 29 of the Insecticides Act 1968 read with rule 27(5) of Insecticides 1971?” 9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that on 28.07.05, Gurmeet Singh, Insecticides Inspector, Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." accompanied by Teja Singh, Block Agriculture Officer and Jaswinder Singh, ADO, took the sample of Cartap Hydrochloride 4% G from the shop of the dealer M/s Sandha Pesticides & Fertilizers, Village Pindi, Block Guruhar Sahai, which was sent to the testing laboratory, at Amritsar and the laboratory had opined that the sample was not as per I.S. specifications with respect to its active ingredients and was misbranded. Learned APP further contended that PW2 Gurmeet Singh, Insecticide Inspector, who is the complainant in the instant case, took the sample, as per the procedure and have given the minute details of the sampling and subsequent sending of the sample to the testing laboratory. He further argued that the case of the complainant has been supported, in all material particulars by PW1, Resham Singh, Agriculture Officer. The chain in the evidence of the complainant is fully complete as per the deposition of the witnesses of the complainant. Learned APP argued that the evidence led by the complainant is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused persons, as they have stored, marketed and manufactured the misbranded insecticide for sale, hence, accused be convicted and sentenced as per law. Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." 10. On the other hand, learned defence counsel has controverted all the contentions raised by learned A.P.P. by oral, as well as, by submission of written arguments. Learned counsel for accused No.1 to 4, who are dealers in the present case, has vehemently contended that accused No.1 to 4 accused are dealers/licencee on the basis of license issued by the department of Agriculture. They are entitled to benefit of section 30(3) of Insecticide Act 1968. It was further argued that link evidence is missing in this case, which goes to the root of the case. 11. Learned defence counsel for accused No.5 and 7 has further contended that mere stocking of the insecticide is no offence as there is no sale in the eyes of law as required under Section 18 of the Insecticide Act. There is nothing on record to show that the insecticide which was lying in the shop of the accused, was meant for sale. He argued that there is a gross violation of rule No.34 of the Insecticide Act, which is a mandatory requirement. It was argued that defective procedure has been adopted by the Insecticide Inspector for drawing the sample, which has also raised suspicion over the version of the complainant. It was contended that there is non compliance of Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." provisions of Section 33 of Insecticide Act while launching the prosecution against the company. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for accused has placed reliance on case law titled as “The State of Punjab Vs. H.S.Dhillon, 1982 Vol.IX. The Criminal Law Times page 424; L.S.Negi Versus State of Punjab, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 705; Shabbir Itarsi and another Vs. State of Haryana, 2005(1) RCR (Criminal) page 31.” 12. In order to prove the case, complainant examined Resham Singh, Agriculture Officer, as PW1 who has deposed as per the prosecution case and has proved on record copies of Form No.XX and XXI as Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 respectively and covering letter Ex.P3. Thereafter, complainant Gurmeet Singh has himself stepped into the witness box as PW2, who has deposed as per the prosecution case and has proved on record, Govt. Notifications Ex.P4, copy of letter No.413 dt. 29.07.05 Ex.P5, report of Insecticide Lab, Amritsar as Ex.P6, letters Ex.P7 & Ex.P8 issued by CAO to dealer and manufacturer respectively, report of Central Insecticide Testing Lab, Faridabad as Ex.P9, sanction Ex.P10, present complaint Ex.P11, his signature thereon as Ex.P12 and notification Ex.P13 vide which the commodity Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." was declared as Essential Commodity. 13. I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused. Admittedly, accused No.1 and 2 Daler Singh is the dealer whereas accused No.3 and 4 are distributors, accused No.7 to 9 are the suppliers and accused No.5 and 6, Agrimas Chemical Ltd. H-2, M.I.D.C., Industrial Area, Taloja, District Raigarh (Maharashtra) are the manufacturers of the insecticide in question. As far as, the benefit of Section 30(3) of the Act available to accused dealers, is concerned, it is established on record that accused No.1 and 2 were having the requisite license. Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act provides:- “A person not being an importer or a manufacturer of an insecticide or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for a contravention of any provision of this Act, if he proved:- (a) that he acquired the insecticide from an improter or a duly licenced manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof; (b) that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the insecticide in any way contravened any provision of this Act; and (c) that the insecticide, while in his possession, was Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it.” From the oral, as well as documentary evidence it transpires that there is no dispute regarding acquiring the insecticide from the licensed manufacturer i.e. M/s Agrimas Chemical Ltd. H-2, M.I.D.C., Industrial Area, Taloja, District Raigarh (Maharashtra). 14. It has come in the examination in chief of PW2, Gurmeet Singh, that in order to draw the sample, he opened the bag of Cartap Hydrochloride 4% G, randomly and drew approximately 750 gm of the sample material from the bag, which was divided into three separate parts of 250 gm each, and each part was put into separate three clan and dry polythene packets. However, he has stated in his cross- examination that the bag selected by them was of original packing and he did not find any illegality regarding these bags and after obtaining the bag, the whole material weighing 5 Kg was put on newspaper, lying on the table of the shop. This witness has admitted that the accused No.1 and 2 were having valid license on the day of taking sample, for the sale of pesticide. It is further evident that the mandatory provisions of Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 have not been Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." followed, while drawing the samples in question. As per the version of the complainant, two sealed samples of the insecticides in question were deposited with Resham Singh, ADO, office of CAO, on 29.07.05 by Pitambar Lal ASI. The CAO sent one sealed sample to Insecticides Testing Lab., Amritsar, through Suresh Kumar, ASI. 15. It is important to mention here that the Pitamber Lal, ASI Guruharsahai was the material witness of the case, who could have deposed regarding the alleged custody of the sealed sample with him w.e.f. 28.07.05 to 29.07.05 and could have deposed regarding non- tampering of the sample as long as it remained in his custody. Similarly, Suresh Kumar, ASI, was the important link in the case, who had allegedly taken the sealed sample to Insecticides Testing Lab, Amritsar. Both the above named witnesses have not stepped into the witness box, to corroborate the version of the complainant. It has come in cross examination of PW2 Gurmeet Singh that at the time of drawing of alleged sample, Jaswinder Singh and tEja Singh were also accompanying him. It is pertinent to mention here that both the above named witnesses, who are the eye witnesses of alleged recovery have also not come forward to depose against the accused persons, for the Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." reasons best known to them. Thus, the important link evidence is missing in the instant case, benefit of which, must be given to the accused. As already discussed above, there is no evidence on record to show that the contents of insecticides in question were mixed or made homogeneous before drawing the sample. 16. It has been held by our own Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, in “K.C.Sharma Vs. UOI, 2011(1)RCR (Criminal), 103”, that the perusal of Section 30(3) of Insecticides Act, 1968, shows that the petitioner is entitled to the protection under the same in case sample is taken from the sealed container and the seal had not been tampered when the same was recovered from the shop. The petitioners could not know with their reasonable diligence about the contents of the original sealed packets. It has been further held by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in “Surinder Kumar Versus State of Punjab, 2011(1)RCR (Criminal), 211” that in case the sample of insecticides is drawn out of the original, the sealed and packed containers by the Insecticides Inspector, from the shop premises of the licensed dealer, which were later on found misbranded after analysis, the licensee cannot be held liable. Thus, in view of above cited case law, it is Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." crystal clear that accused No.1 and 2 being licensed dealers are entitled to benefit u/s 30(3) of Insecticides Act. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that pesticide in question was kept by the accused for sale to general public. 17. As far as the liability against the manufacturer is concerned, it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in “State of NCT of Delhi Versus Rajiv Khurana, 2010(3) RCR (Criminal), 912” that it is imperative to specifically aver in the complaint that the accused manufacturer was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Unless clear averments are specifically incorporated in the complaint, The respondent cannot be compelled to face the rigmarole of a criminal trial. 18. In the instant case also, the complainant has failed to establish that the accused No.5 and 6 (manufacturer) were not director or Manager or the Secretary or any other officer of the company in any manner, responsible or incharge of the affairs of the company, so as to be held vicariously liable for the alleged offence, stated to have been committed by the company. It has come in the cross-examination of the PW2, Gurmeet Singh, ADO, Ferozepur that during investigation of the Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." present case, he never visited the office of manufacturer company/ accused No.5 and 6 and he is not aware as to where the manufacturing units of the company are being operated. He further expressed his ignorance with regard to the incharge or Managing Director and Quality Controller of the material as he never visited the company, till date and he has admitted that he has seen the accused on behalf of the compay, for the first time in the court. It is important to mention here that PW1, Resham Singh and PW2 Gurmeet Singh, never stated in their examinations in chief, that the accused No.5 and 6 were responsible persons of the affairs of the company, at the relevant time. 19. Another important aspect of the case, that cannot be ignored is that without obtaining sanction under section 31 of Insecticide Act, no prosecution can be launched against the accused. In the sanction Ex.P10, there is a mention of the notification dt. 15.01.93, but the same has not been produced on the record. Without producing the notification, authorizing Insecticide Inspector to draw the sample and the notification of the Analyst, who tested the sample, it cannot be proved that there was any valid appointment to test the sample in question and whether the person who gave the sanction was competent Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." to give the sanction. In the instant case, sanction Ex.P10 has been obtained from Joint Director Agriculture, Punjab, Chandigarh, which appears to have been given in routine manner, without applying mind. As such, this court is of the view that sanction is not valid sanction. In this context this Court is supported by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court cited as “2005(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) page 53”. 20. It is well settled that, as per law, Insecticide Inspector is required to adopt the measures for taking the sample, as mentioned in Indian standard method for sampling of pesticidal formulations. These rules are mandatory, as held by our own Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in number of cases. It is important to mention here that as per the version of the complainant, 160 x 5 Kg packing material was lying in the shop of the accused, but only one bag was chosen for sample, which is against the law. As per law, seven containers were required to be taken in accordance with the quantity of the pesticide lying in the premises. There is no evidence that when the sampling material was put in the polythene bags, whether it was dry, clean or made air tight or leak proof or whether the contents of the material Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." were thoroughly mixed with the suitable means. In the absence of these requirements, representative sample cannot be prepared for test. 21. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that accused No.5 to 8 were the responsible persons of the company for conducting its business and affairs and whether the alleged offence has been committed by them, with the requisite knowledge. None of the prosecution witnesses have stated that accused No.5 to 8 were the responsible persons of the company for conducting its business and affairs, at the time, when the alleged offence was committed. Further it is not proved on record, that all the accused had “stocked” or exhibited the insecticide for sale, within the meaning of Section 18 of the Insecticide Act. In this context, this Court is supported by the law laid down by our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled as “M.S.Negi Versus State of Punjab, 2005(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 705”. 22. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record this Court is of the firm view that the prosecution/complainant has miserably failed to prove its case against the present accused regarding the alleged violation of provisions of Insecticides Act, beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16 21 "St. Vs. M/s Sandha Pesticides etc." Hence, all the present accused persons are hereby acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand furnished at the time of appearance stand discharged. The case property, if any, be disposed off as per rules after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any and the outcome thereof. File be consigned to the Judicial Record Room, Ferozepur subject to its revival as and when the proclaimed offenders namely Sunil Sethi and Srikant Mahajan surrenders or arrested by the police. Pronounced in open court. Sd/- Dated:07.10.2016. (Tripat Jot Kaur) AMS Chief Judicial Magistrate Ferozepur. Tripat Jot Kaur, CJM, Fzr/7.10.16

Similar Cases

Frequently Asked Questions

The Petitioner in case State vs Ms Agrimas Chemicals Ltd H-2, M.I.D.C is State.

The Respondent in case State vs Ms Agrimas Chemicals Ltd H-2, M.I.D.C is Ms Agrimas Chemicals Ltd H-2, M.I.D.C and 8 more.

The case against Ms Agrimas Chemicals Ltd H-2, M.I.D.Cwas filed on 13-08-2008 by State.

The status of case State against Ms Agrimas Chemicals Ltd H-2, M.I.D.C is Case Disposed.