State Vs Ms Sawastik Pesticides Ltd
Case Details
 Case Type | COMA |
 Filing Number | 1705/2013 |
 Registration Number | 701/2013 |
 Filing Date | 29-01-2013 |
 Registration Date | 29-01-2013 |
 First Hearing Date | 03rd April 2013 |
 Decision Date | 28th March 2017 |
 Case Status | Case Disposed |
 Court Number and Judge | 1-Judicial Magistrate First Class-1; |
 Nature of Disposal | Contested--Acquitted; |
Petitioners & Respondents
Petitioner State, ;
.svg){kind=icon}
Petitioner AdvocateApp;
Respondent NameMs Bharat Pesticides, Rajinder Kamboj, Ms Sawastik Pesticides Ltd, Surya Pal Singh;
Respondent AdvocateSh Pardeep Kataria;
Order Details
| Order Date | 01-02-2014  |
Present: APP for the State. Accused Rajinder Kumar on bail with counsel Sh. RP Chuchra, Adv. Bailable warrants issued to remaining accused not received back. Fresh bailable warrants of remaining accused be issued for 04.04.2014. Dated: 01.02.2014 Monica Sharma, JMIC, Fazilka |
| Order Date | 04-04-2014 |
Present: Sh. Gurbaj Singh, Ld. APP for the State. Accused Rajinder Chuchra on bail with counsel Sh. RP Chuchra, Adv. Accused Surya Pal Singh and Rajan Kumar in person with counsel Sh. Pardeep Kataria, Adv. Copies of challan supplied to both the accused free of cost as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C along with documents. Accused Rajinder Pal and Rajan Kumar surrender in the Court along with counsel. On behalf of both the accused Sh. Pardeep Kataria, Advocate has filed power of attorney. Since the offence is bailable in nature. Therefore accused, Surya Pal Singh and Rajan Kumar are admitted to bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,00,00/- with one surety in the like amount . Bail bonds on behalf of accused Surya Pal Singh and Rajan Kumar furnished which have been accepted and attested. Accused no.4 T.V. Anurudan be summoned for 04.06.2014. dated: 04.04.2014 Monica Sharma, JMIC, Fazilka |
| Order Date | 04-06-2014 |
State Vs. Bharat Pesticides Present:- Sh. Gurbaj Singh, Ld. APP for the State. Accused Rajinder chuchra on bail with Counsel Sh. RP Chuchra, Adv. Accused Surya pal Singh and Rajan Kumar on bail with Counsel Sh. Pardeep Kataria, Adv. Summon issued to accused no.4 not received back. Let, fresh summon to accused no. 4 be issued for 28.08.14. Dated:- 04.06.14 Monica Sharma JMIC Fazilka |
| Order Date | 28-08-2014 |
Present:- Sh. Gurbaj Singh, Ld. APP for the State. Accused Rajinder Chuchra on bail with Counsel, Sh. R.P. Chuchra, Adv. Accused Suryapal Singh and Rajan Kumar on bail with counsel, Sh. Pradeep Kataria, Adv. Summons issued to accused No.4 T.V. Anurudan received back unserved. I am satisfied that presence of accused No.4 cannot be procured through ordinary way. In view of this publication against accused No.4 T.V. Anurudan be issued in the News Paper “The Tribune” for 07.10.14 on filing of adequate publication charges by the complainant within seven days. Dated: 28.08.14 Monica Sharma JMIC, Fazilka. |
| Order Date | 07-10-2014 |
Present:- Sh. Gurbaj Singh, Ld. APP for the State. Accused Rajinder Chuchra, on bail with Counsel Sh. R.P. Chuchra, Adv. Accused Surapal Singh and Rajan Kumar on bail with Counsel, Sh. Pradeep Kataria, Adv. Publication against accused No. 4 T.V. Anurudan could not be issued as complainant has late deposited publication fee. Let, Publication against accused No. 4 T.V. Anurudan be issued for 13.11.14 in the News paper “ The Tribune”. Dated:- 07.10.14 Monica Sharma (Talkeshwar Kumar) JMIC, Fazilka |
| Order Date | 13-11-2014 |
Present:- Sh. Gurbaj Singh, Ld. APP for the State. Accused Rajinder Chuchra, on bail with Counsel Sh. R.P. Chuchra, Adv. Accused Surapal Singh and Rajan Kumar on bail with Counsel, Sh. Pradeep Kataria, Adv. Publication against accused No. 4 T.V. Anurudan not received back. Let, fresh Publication against accused No. 4 T.V. Anurudan be issued for 06.02.15 in the News paper “ The Tribune”. Dated:- 13.11.14 Monica Sharma (Talkeshwar Kumar) JMIC, Fazilka |
| Order Date | 06-02-2015 |
Present:- Sh. Gurbaj Singh, Ld. APP for the State. Accused Rajinder Kamboj on bail with Counsel, Sh. R.P. Chuchra, Adv. Accused Surapal Singh and Rajan Kumar on bail with Counsel, Sh.Pradeep Kataria, Adv. Publication issued against accused No.4 T.V. Anurudan not received back. Let, fresh Publication against accused No.4 T.V. Anurudan be issued for 07.04.15 in the Newspaper “The Tribune”. Dated:-06.02.15 Monica Sharma (Talkeshwar Kumar) JMIC, Fazilka |
| Order Date | 07-04-2015 |
Present:- Sh. Gurbaj Singh, Ld. APP for the State. Accused Rajinder Kamboj on bail with Counsel, Sh. R.P. Chuchra, Adv. Accused Surapal Singh and Rajan Kumar on bail with counsel, Sh. Pradeep Kataria, Adv. Publication not issued against accused No. 4 T.V. Anurudan. Alhmad is directed to issue a reminder in this regard to the concerned advertising Manager and directing him to publish the notice for 08.06.15. Dated:-07.04.15 Monica Sharma (Talkeshwar Kumar) JMIC, Fazilka |
| Order Date | 08-06-2015 |
Present:- Sh. Gurbaj Singh, Ld. APP for the State. Accused Rajinder Kamboj, on bail with Counsel, Sh. R.P. Chuchra, Adv. Accused Surapal Singh and Rajan Kumar on bail with Counsel, Sh. Pradeep Kataria, Adv. Publication not issued against accused No. 4 T.V. Anurudan. Ahlmad is directed to issue a reminder in this regard to the concerned advertising Manager and directing him to publish the notice for 07.09.15. Dated: 08.06.15 Monica Sharma (Talkeshwar Kumar) JMIC, Fazilka |
| Order Date | 07-09-2015 |
123 State Vs M/S Bharat Pesticides ec Present: APP for the State. Accused Rajinder Kamboj on bail with counsel Sh.RP Chuchra,Adv. Accused Surapal Singh and Rajan Kumar on bail with counsel. Publication issued against accused no.4 TV Anurudan not received back. The same be awaited till 2.11.2015. Reminder be issued for date fixed. Dated: 7.9.2015 (Monica Sharma) SJK JMIC/FZK |
| Order Date | 02-11-2015 |
123 State Vs M/S Bharat Pesticides Present: APP for the State. Accused Rajinder Kamboj on bail with counsel Sh.RP Chuchra,Adv. Sh.SD Kataria,Adv.for accused Surjapal Singh. Accused Rajan Kumar on bail with counsel. Sh.SD Kataria,Adv has filed power of attorney on behalf of accused Surjapal Singh. An exemption application on bahalf of accused Surjapal Singh moved. The same is allowed for today only on the grounds mentioned therein. Publication issued against accused No.4 TV Anurudan not received back. The same be awaited till 27.1.2016. Reminder be issued to publisher. Dated: 02.11.2015 (Monica Sharma) SJK JMIC/FZK |
| Order Date | 27-01-2016 |
123 State Vs M/S Bharat Pesticides etc Present: Sh.Gurbaj Singh, APP for the State. Accused Rajinder Kamboj, Surajpal Singh, Rajan Kumar on bail with counsel Sh.PK Kataria,Adv. Publication issued against accused No.4 TV Anurudan not received back. The same be awaited till 12.4.2016. Reminder be issued to publisher. Dated: 27.1.2016 (Monica Sharma) SJK JMIC/FZK |
| Order Date | 05-05-2016 |
State Vs Bharat Present:- Sh.Vipanjit , Ld. APP for the State. Accused Rajinder, Surajpal and Rajan on bail with proxy counsel, Sh. R. S. Thind, Advocate. File received by transfer. It be registered. As per report of Ahlmad, publication was issued on 13-10-2014 but not received till date. Reminder in this regard be issued to concerned advertising Manager directing him to publish the notice on or before 09-06-2016. Dated: 05.05.2016 ASD (Parminder Kaur), PCS JMIC, Fazilka |
| Order Date | 09-06-2016 |
State Vs Bharat Present:- Sh. Gurbaj Singh Ld. APP for state. Accused on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv except accused Surya Pal Singh. An application seeking exemption from personal appearance of accused Surya Pal Singh filed. Considered. In view of the averments made in the application, personal appearance of accused Surya Pal Singh is exempted for today only. The reminder issued to The Tribune Trust received back with report that vide which they regret their inability to carry the advertisement due to old outstanding and a statement of account for the period from 01-04-1995 to 31-03-2016 shows a debit balance of Rs. 16,l287.00/-. Report of Nazar be called for 11-07-2016. Parminder Kaur ASD JMIC/09-06-2016 |
| Order Date | 11-07-2016 |
Present:- Ms. Reena, Ld.APP for the State. Accused on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. Report of Nazar not received. Report of Nazar be again called for 22- 07-2016. Parminder Kaur JMIC/11-07-2016 ASD |
| Order Date | 22-07-2016 |
State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides COMA.701 Present: Sh.Gurbaj Singh, learned APP for the State. Accused on bail with counsel Sh.Pardeep Kataria,Adv. Report of Nazir has been received who has reported that as per record at serial No.559 dated 01.10.2014, Rs.6000/- has been deposited by Gurmeet Singh. Today Sh.Gurmeet Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector has moved an application for return of Rs.6000/- which was deposited by him on 01.10.2014. Heard. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application and as per report of Nazir, the amount of Rs.6000/- deposited by applicant Gurmeet Singh Cheema is ordered to be released in his favour against proper receipt and identification as per rules and applicant is directed to deposit the cash amount at own responsibility at the office of The Tribune Chandigarh and get the publication dasti relating to appearance of accused No.4 TV Anurudan. Now to come up on 04.08.2016 for the purpose mentioned above. Dated:22.7.2016. Parminder Kaur, JMIC/Fazilka. |
| Order Date | 04-08-2016 |
State Vs M/S Bharat Pesticides Present: Ms. Reena, Ld. APP for the State. Accused Rajinder, Surajpal and Rajan on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. Notice to accused No. 4 TV Anurudan through publication not issued due to non filing of publication fee. Notice to accused No. 4 TV Anurudan through publication be issued for 08.09.2016 on filing of publication fee. Dated: 04.08.2016 ASD (Parminder Kaur), PCS JMIC,Fazilka |
| Order Date | 08-09-2016 |
State Vs M/S Bharat Pesticides. Present:- Mrs. Shikha Dhall, Ld. APP for State. Accused No. 2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No. 1 also on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. Suraya pal accused No. 5 in person and on behalf of accused No. 3 on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. . Rajan on behalf of accused No. 5 on bail with counsel, Sh. P K. Kataria, Adv. Publication against accused No. 4 T. V Anurudan who has been sued through Sh. Surya Pal Singh son of Sh. Begram Singh r/o 382 Patel Nagar new Mandi Muzaffarnagar proprietor and responsible for conduct of business of T. V. Anurudan received back duly effected. Surya Pal suffered statement that TV Anurudan has left M/S Sawastik Pesticides company from last 8/9 years. He further stated that he and his company do not know his whereabout. In view of these circum- stances, the case is adjourned to 21-09-2016 for awaiting presence of accused No. 4 T. V. Anurudan. Dated: 08.09.2016 ASD (Parminder Kaur), PCS JMIC, Fazilka |
| Order Date | 21-09-2016 |
State Vs M/S Bharat Pesticides. Present:- Mrs. Shikha Dhall, Ld. APP for State. Accused No. 2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No. 1 also on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. Suraya pal accused No. 5 in person and on behalf of accused No. 3 on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. . Rajan on behalf of accused No. 5 on bail with counsel, Sh. P K. Kataria, Adv. Publication against accused No. 4 T. V Anurudan who has been sued through Sh. Surya Pal Singh son of Sh. Begram Singh r/o 382 Patel Nagar new Mandi Muzaffarnagar proprietor and responsible for conduct of busi- ness of T. V. Anurudan has already been effected. Perusal of the newspaper shows that publication of accused No. 4 T. V Anurudan was published on 20.08.2016. As such statutory period of 30 days has been elapsed, but ac- cused No. 4 T. V Anurudan did not come present till today. Hence accused No. 4 T. V Anurudan is declared as proclaimed persons. Necessary intima- tion in this regard to be sent to the concerned police station for taking neces- sary action against accused No. 4 under Section 174-A IPC and police is at liberty to arrest the accused and produce before this court. Now to come up on 03-10-2016 for arguments on charge. Dated: 21.09.2016 ASD (Parminder Kaur), PCS JMIC, Fazilka |
| Order Date | 25-10-2016 |
Present:- Mrs. Shikha Dhall, Ld. APP for State. Accused No. 2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No. 1 also on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. Sh. P. K. Kataria, Advocate for accused Suraya pal Rajan on behalf of accused No. 5 on bail with counsel, Sh. P K. Kataria, Adv. Accused No. 4 declared as proclaimed person. An application seeking exemption from personal appearance of accused Surya Pal filed. Considered. In view of the averments made in the application, personal appearance of accused Surya Pal is exempted for today only. Arguments not advanced. On request of counsel for parties, the case is adjourned to 01-11-2016 for arguments on charge. Dated: 25.10.2016 ASD (Parminder Kaur), PCS JMIC, Fazilka |
| Order Date | 03-10-2016 |
State Vs. M.s Bharat Pesticides Present: Mrs.Shikha Dhall, learned APP for the State. Accused No.2 Rajinder Kamboj in person on behalf of accused No.1 also on bail with counsel Sh.P.K.Kataria,Adv. Surya pal accused No.5 in person and on behalf of accused No.3 on bail with counsel Sh.PK Kataria, Adv. Rajan on behalf of accused No.5 on bail with counsel Sh.PK Kataria, Adv. File put up before me being Duty Magistrate as learned Presiding Officer is on leave today. To come up on 25.10.2016 for arguments on charge. Dt.03.10.2016 Pritpal Singh, (SKN) Chief Judicial Magistrate. Fazilka(Duty) |
| Order Date | 01-11-2016 |
State Vs M/S Bharat Pesticides. Present:- Sh. Amanpreet Singh, Ld. APP for State. Accused No. 2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No. 1 also on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. Surya Pal accused No. 5 in person and on behalf of accused No. 3 on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. Rajan on behalf of accused No. 5 on bail with counsel, Sh. P K. Kataria, Adv. Accused No. 4 declared as proclaimed person. Arguments not advanced. On request of counsel for parties, the case is adjourned to 07-11-2016 for arguments on charge. Dated: 01.11.2016 ASD (Parminder Kaur), PCS JMIC, Fazilka |
| Order Date | 07-11-2016 |
State Vs M/S Bharat Pesticides. Present:- Mrs. Shikha Dhall, Ld. APP for State. Accused No. 2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No. 1 also on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. Sh. P. K. Kataria, Advocate for accused Suraya pal Rajan on behalf of accused No. 5 on bail with counsel, Sh. P K. Kataria, Adv. Accused No. 4 declared as proclaimed person. An application seeking exemption from personal appearance of accused Surya Pal filed. Considered. In view of the averments made in the application, personal appearance of accused Surya Pal is exempted for today only. Arguments not advanced. On request of counsel for parties, the case is adjourned to 11-11-2016 for arguments on charge. Dated: 07.11.2016 ASD (Parminder Kaur), PCS JMIC, Fazilka |
| Order Date | 11-11-2016 |
State Vs M/S Bharat Pesticides. Present:- Mrs. Shikha Dhall, Ld. APP for State. Accused No. 2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No. 1 also on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. Suraya Pal accused No. 5 in person on behalf of accused No. 3 on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. kataria, Adv. Rajan on behalf of accused No. 5 on bail with counsel, Sh. P K. Kataria, Adv. Accused No. 4 declared as proclaimed person. Arguments not advanced. On request of counsel for parties, the case is adjourned to 23-11-2016 for arguments on charge. Dated: 11.11.2016 ASD (Parminder Kaur), PCS JMIC, Fazilka |
| Order Date | 23-11-2016 |
| Order Date | 21-12-2016 |
State Vs M/S Bharat Pesticides. Present:- Mrs. Shikha Dhall, Ld. APP for State. Accused No. 2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No. 1 also on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. Suraya Pal accused No. 5 in person on behalf of accused No. 3 on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. kataria, Adv. Rajan on behalf of accused No. 5 on bail with counsel, Sh. P K. Kataria, Adv. Accused No. 4 declared as proclaimed person. Pws Gurmeet Singh and PW Shiv Barn are present but Ld. APP requested for adjournment. Present witnesses are bound down for 09- 01-2017. No other PW is present. Summons to PW Resham Singh through clerk received back served, but he has not come present de- spite service. Now, he be summoned through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount for 09-01-2017. Summons to all unexamined Pws be also issued for said date. Dated: 21.12.2016 ASD (Parminder Kaur), PCS JMIC, Fazilka |
| Order Date | 09-01-2017 |
State Vs M/S Bharat Pesticides. COMA/701/2013 Present:- Mrs. Shikha Dhall, Ld. APP for State. Accused No. 2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No. 1 also on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. Suraya Pal accused No. 5 in person on behalf of accused No. 3 on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. kataria, Adv. Rajan on behalf of accused No. 5 on bail with counsel, Sh. P K. Kataria, Adv. Accused No. 4 declared as proclaimed person. PW1 Gurmeet Singh Chima is present and examined. PW Shiv Baran is present but Ld. APP requested for adjournment. Present wit- ness Shiv Baran is bound down for 20-01-2017. Bailable warrants of PW Resham Singh and summons to all unexamined Pws be issued for said date. Dated: 09.01.2017 (Parminder Kaur), PCS JMIC, Fazilka Ashish Dhawan (Stenographer Grade-iii) |
| Order Date | 20-01-2017 |
State Vs M/S Bharat Pesticides. COMA/701/2013 Present:- Sh. Amanpreet Singh, Ld. APP for State. Accused No. 2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No. 1 also on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. Suraya Pal accused No. 5 in person on behalf of accused No. 3 on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. kataria, Adv. Rajan on behalf of accused No. 5 on bail with counsel, Sh. P K. Kataria, Adv. Accused No. 4 declared as proclaimed person. PW2 Shiv Baran is present and examined. No other PW is present. Bailable warrants of PW Resham Singh and summons to all unexamined Pws be issued for 30-01-2017. Dated: 20.01.2017 (Parminder Kaur), PCS JMIC, Fazilka Ashish Dhawan (Stenographer Grade-iii) |
| Order Date | 30-01-2017 |
State Vs M/S Bharat Pesticides COMA/701/2013 Present:- Mrs. Shikha Dhall, Ld. APP for State. Accused No. 2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No. 1 also on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. Suraya Pal accused No. 5 in person on behalf of accused No. 3 on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. kataria, Adv. Rajan on behalf of accused No. 5 on bail with counsel, Sh. P K. Kataria, Adv. Accused No. 4 declared as proclaimed person. NO PW is present. Bailable warrants of PW Resham Singh and summons to all unexamined Pws be issued for 09-02-2017. Dated: 30.01.2017 (Parminder Kaur), PCS JMIC, Fazilka Ashish Dhawan Stenographer grade-iii Ashish Dhawan Stenographer grade-iii |
| Order Date | 09-02-2017 |
State Vs M/S Bharat Pesticides COMA/701/2013 Present:- Sh. Gurbaj Singh, Ld. APP for State. Accused No. 2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No. 1 also on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. Suraya Pal accused No. 5 in person on behalf of accused No. 3 on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. kataria, Adv. Rajan on behalf of accused No. 5 on bail with counsel, Sh. P K. Kataria, Adv. Accused No. 4 declared as proclaimed person. NO PW is present. Bailable warrants of PW Resham Singh and summons to all unexamined Pws be issued for 28-02-2017. Dated: 09.02.2017 (Parminder Kaur), PCS JMIC, Fazilka Ashish Dhawan Stenographer grade-iii Ashish Dhawan Stenographer grade-iii |
| Order Date | 28-02-2017 |
State Vs M/S Bharat Pesticides COMA/701/2013 Present:- Ms. Reena, Ld. APP for State. Accused No. 2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No. 1 also on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. Suraya Pal accused No. 5 in person on behalf of accused No. 3 on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. kataria, Adv. Rajan on behalf of accused No. 5 on bail with counsel, Sh. P K. Kataria, Adv. Accused No. 4 declared as proclaimed person. PW3 Resham Singh, PW4 Paramjeet Singh and PW5 Jarnail Singh are present and examined. No other PW is present. Summons to Pws No. 2 and 6 as listed in the list of witnesses be issued for 08-03- 2017, subject to last opportunity. Summons to all unexamined Pws be issued for said date, subject to last opportunity. Dated: 28.02.2017 (Parminder Kaur), PCS JMIC, Fazilka Ashish Dhawan Stenographer grade-iii Ashish Dhawan Stenographer grade-iii |
| Order Date | 08-03-2017 |
State Vs M/S Bharat Pesticides COMA/701/2013 Present:- Ms. Reena, Ld. APP for State. Accused No. 2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No. 1 also on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. Suraya Pal accused No. 5 in person on behalf of accused No. 3 on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. kataria, Adv. Rajan on behalf of accused No. 5 on bail with counsel, Sh. P K. Kataria, Adv. Accused No. 4 declared as proclaimed person. PW6 Ram Saroop is present and examined. No other PW is present. Summons to Pws No. 6 Ranjodh Singh as listed in the list of witnesses be issued for 16-03-2017, subject to last opportunity. Summons to all unexamined Pws be issued for said date, subject to last opportunity. Dated: 08.03.2017 (Parminder Kaur), PCS JMIC, Fazilka Ashish Dhawan Stenographer grade-iii Ashish Dhawan Stenographer grade-iii |
| Order Date | 16-03-2017 |
State Vs M/S Bharat Pesticides COMA/701/2013 Present:- Sh. Bikramjit Singh, Ld. APP for State. Accused No. 2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No. 1 also on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. Sh. Pardeep Kataria, Advocate for accused Surya Pal Rajan on behalf of accused No. 5 on bail with counsel, Sh. P K. Kataria, Adv. Accused No. 4 declared as proclaimed person. An application seeking exemption from personal appearance of ac- cused Surya Pal filed. Considered. In view of the averments made in the ap- plication, personal appearance of accused Surya Pal is exempted for today only. No PW is present despite last opportunity. Perusal of file, reveals that charge in the present case has been framed on 23-11-2016 and thereafter the prosecution has availed as many as 9 opportunities including last opportunity but has failed to conclude the evidence. Today, Ld. APP for the state re- quested for adjournment for leading evidence but no ground is made out to give opportunity to prosecution to lead evidence. Therefore, his request is declined. Evidence of the prosecution is closed by order. For recording the statement of accused U/S 313 Cr. P. C to come up on 21-03-2017. Dated: 16.03.2017 (Parminder Kaur), PCS JMIC, Fazilka Ashish Dhawan Stenographer grade-iii Ashish Dhawan Stenographer grade-iii |
| Order Date | 21-03-2017 |
State Vs M/S Bharat Pesticides COMA/701/2013 Present:- Sh. Bikramjit Singh, Ld. APP for State. Accused No. 2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No. 1 also on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. Sh. Pardeep Kataria, Advocate for accused Surya Pal Rajan on behalf of accused No. 5 on bail with counsel, Sh. P K. Kataria, Adv. Accused No. 4 declared as proclaimed person. An application seeking exemption from personal appearance of ac- cused Surya Pal filed. Considered. In view of the averments made in the ap- plication, personal appearance of accused Surya Pal is exempted for today only. On request of counsel for accused, the case is adjourned to 27-03-2017 for recording the statement of accused U/S 313 Cr. P. C. Dated: 21.03.2017 (Parminder Kaur), PCS JMIC, Fazilka Ashish Dhawan Stenographer grade-iii Ashish Dhawan Stenographer grade-iii |
| Order Date | 27-03-2017 |
State Vs M/S Bharat Pesticides. Present:- Sh. Bikramjit Singh, Ld. APP for State. Accused No. 2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No. 1 also on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. Kataria, Adv. Suraya Pal accused No. 5 in person on behalf of accused No. 3 on bail with counsel, Sh. P. K. kataria, Adv. Rajan on behalf of accused No. 5 on bail with counsel, Sh. P K. Kataria, Adv. Accused No. 4 declared as proclaimed person. Statements of accused U/S 313 Cr. P. C recorded. For defence evidence if any and for arguments to come up on 28-03-2017 . Dated: 27.03.2017 (Parminder Kaur), PCS JMIC, Fazilka Ashish Dhawan Stenographer grade-iii Ashish Dhawan Stenographer grade-iii |
Final Order Judgement
| Order Date | 28-03-2017 |
| 123 State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 1 In the Court of Ms.Parminder Kaur, PCS, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka. (UID No.PB0268) Crl. Case No.21-2 of 29.01.2013. CIS No.COMA/701/2013. Date of Decision: 28.03.2017. State through Gurmit Singh Cheema Insecticide Inspector, Fazilka District Fazilka. ----Complainant. Versus State Vs. 1. M/s Bharat Pesticies, New Grain Market, Fazilka through its Sole proprietor and responsible person Sh.Rajinder Kamboj -- Firm 2. Rajinder Kamboj son of Chamba Ram Sole Proprietor and responsible person of M/s Bharat Pesticides New Grain Market, Fazilka, District Fazilka. --Dealer 3 M/s Swastik Pesticides Ltd.Bhopa Road, Muzafarnagar (U.P.)through Sh.Surya Pal Singh son of Sh.Begam Singh resident of 382 Patel Nagar New Mandi Muzaffarnagar (U.P.)Director and responsible officer for conduct of business, Sh.T.V.Anurudan son of Sh.K.V. Vasu resident care of M/s Swastic Pesticides Ltd.Bhopa Road, Muzafarnagar (U.P.) Chemist and responsible officer of Quality Control of M/s Swastic Pesticides Ltd. Muzafarnagar (U.P.) 4. Sh.Surya Pal Singh son of Sh.Begram Singh resident of 382 Patel Nagar New Mandi Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) Director and responsible officer for conduct of business, Sh.T.V.Anurudan son of Sh.K.V.Vasu resident care of M/s Swastik Pesticides Ltd.Bhopa Road, Muzafarnagar. (U.P.) Chemist and responsible officer of Quality control of M/s Swastik Pesticides Ltd.Muzafarnagar. M/s Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 2 M/s Tatex Chemical Satyam Mall 317 3rd Floor opposite Vaishvaishvar Mahadev Mandir, Jodhpur Satelite Ahmadabad through Sh.Sh.Surya Pal Singh son of Sh.Begam Singh resident of Patel Nagar, New Mandi Muzaffarnagar(U.P.) Proprietor and responsible for conduct of business Sh/Rajan Kumar son of Sh.Bishan Sawroop resident of 1214 Subhash Gali Bathinda Godown Incharge of M/s Tatex Chemical at Bathinda. 5. Sh.Surya Pal Singh son of Sh.Begam Singh resident of Patel Nagar, New Mandi Mufaffar Nagar(U.P.), Director and responsible officer for conduct of business, Sh.Rajan Kumar son of Bishan Sawroop resident of 1214 Subhash Gali Bathinda Godown Incharge of M/s Tatex Chemical at Bathinda. ---Accused. Complaint U/S 3-K(1), 17, 18, 33 punishable U/S 29 of Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(4) of Insecticides Rule, 1971. *** Present: Sh.Bikramjit Singh, learned APP for the State. Accused No.2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No.1 also on bail with counsel Sh.Pardeep Kataria, Advocate. Surya Pal accused No.4 & 5 in person and on behalf of accused No.3 on bail with counsel Sh.Pardeep Kataria, Advocate. Rajan Kumar responsible officer for accused No.5 on bail with Sh.Pardeep Kataria, Advocate. Accused T.V.Anurudan son of Sh.K.V.Vasu declared as proclaimed person. JUDGMENT/ 1. The present complaint has been filed through Sh.Gurmit Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector alleging that he was posted at Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 3 Fazilka and authorized to file the present complaint. That M/s Bharat Pesticides, New Grain Market, Fazilka is holding valid Insecticide License No.3972 dated 24.04.2006 issued by the Licensing Authority i.e. Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur. Sh.Rajinder Kamboj son of Sh.Chamba Ram resident of village Dhni Karnail Singh Abohar, District Fazilka is Sole Proprietor of above said firm and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm as per record. On 10.07.2007, he along with Sh.Ram Saroop A.D.O.Fazilka in discharge of his official duty visited the premises of M/s Bharat Pesticides, New Grain Market, Fazilka who is authorized dealer of M/s Swastik Pesticides Ltd. Muzaffarnagar (UP). Sh.Rajinder Kamboj Sole Proprietor of the firm was present in the premises of his firm at the time of inspection of the firm. He introduced himself to Rajinder Kamboj Sole Proprietor of the said firm as Insecticide Inspector Fazilka and intimated his desire to draw sample of Cartaphydro Chloride 4% G.R.Batch No.SPC8012 manufacture date May 2008 and expiry date April 2010 manufactured by M/s Tatex Chemical Satyam Mall 317 3rd Floor opposite Vaishvaishvar Mahadev Mandir, Jodhpur Satelite Ahmadabad of above said pesticides. Sample was taken and he prepared seizure memo in form No.XX. The proprietor of the firm put Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 4 his signatures on form No.XX and three packing of 250 gram each were put in dry and clean polythene bags separately and seizure memo form No.XXI was also put in the cloth bags and the samples were sealed having impressions I.I.AGR.FZK in the presence of the dealer. He was asked to put his own seal on the sample, but he refused to do so, but he signed on the tag label, which was kept under the seal. One part of the sample was handed over to Rajinder Kamboj, Proprietor of the said firm and receipt in lieu of this was also taken in form No.XX. The same was taken as per ISI specification according to procedure laid down in the Insecticide Act. Two parts of sample were sent to the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur by Sh.Shiv Barn Beldar, Fazilka vide letter No.2471 dated 11.7.2008 and handed over to ADO PP Ferozepur in the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur. One part of the sealed sample was sent to Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana vide letter No.08 dated 11.7.2008 ADO (PP) by Jarnail Singh ASI in the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur. Cartaphydro Chloride 4% GR Batch No.SPC8012 manufactured date May 2008 and expiry date April,2010 was manufactured by M/s Tatex Chemical Satyam Mall 317 3rd Floor opposite Vaishvaishvar Mahadev Mandir, Jodhpur Satelite Ahmadabad. Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 5 It was found misbranded by Sr.Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana as Active ingredients were 2.50% instead of 4% which does not confirm to the relevant ISI specification in active ingredients. It was found misbranded under Section 3(K)(i) of the Insecticide Act 1968 as the container of Cartaphydro Chloride 4% GR did not confirm with level claimed as required by law. The dealer M/s Bharat Pesticides New Grain Makret Fazilka and manufacture committed an offence under Section 3(k)(i)17,18 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and rules 1971. That the copy of the Analyst Report was sent to accused dealer and manufacturer respectively through Chief Agriculture Officer Office along with show cause notice bearing No.7573 dated 20.08.2008 and 7578 dated 20.08.2008 respectively dispatched by the dispatcher in the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur. The dealer and manufactures have got re-tested the second part of the above said sample through Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur vide letter No.ADO(PP) 9651 dated 27.10.2008 from Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Faridabad. The second part of sample was again found as misbranded by the Senior Analyst, Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Faridabad as the active ingredient was found 2.75%. Necessary sanction from competent authority has already been Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 6 obtained under Section 31(1) of Insecticides Act 1968 for filing prosecution against all the accused. The misbranded Chloride 4% GR Batch No.SPC8012 is having manufacture date May, 2008 and expiry date April-2010 in 5Kg. packing manufactured by Tatex Chemical Satyam Mall 317 3rd Floor opposite Vaishvaishvar Mahadev Mandir, Jodhpur Satelite Ahmadabad and by supplying misbranded insecticide through M/s Bharat Pesticides, New Grain Market, Fazilka, the said manufacturer has committed offence and Sh.Surya Pal Singh son of Sh.Begam Singh resident of 382 Patel Nagar, New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) being Director and responsible officer for that Sh.T.V.Anurudan son of Sh.K.V.Vasu resident of c/o M/s Swastic Pesticides Ltd.3 KM Bhopa road, Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) is Chemist and responsible officer for quality control of M/s Swastik Pesticides Ltd. Muzaffarnagar. M/s Tatex Chemical Satyam Mall 317 3rd Floor opposite Vaishvaishvar Mahadev Mandir, Jodhpur Satelite Ahmadabad through Sh.Surya Pal Singh son fo Sh.Begam Singh resident of 382 Patel Nagar, New Mandi Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) Proprietor and responsible for conduct of business. Sh.Rajan Kumar son of Sh.Bishan Sawroop resident of 1214 Subhash Gali Bathinda Godwon Incharge of M/s Tatex Chemical at Bathinda is the responsible person of Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 7 manufacturer u/s 31(i) of Insecticide Act 1968. So, he has committed an offence under Section 3(k)(i)17,18 and 33 of the Insecticide Act 1968 and rules 1971 by manufacturing, storing and selling misbranded insecticides. The dealer and manufacturer by selling above misbranded insecticide jointly committed offence under Section 29 of Insecticide Act, 1968. Hence, the present complaint. 2. After institution of the complaint, accused T.V.Anurudan did not appear despite repeated processes and after following due procedure, he was ordered to be declared as proclaimed offender, whereas, remaining accused put their appearance and they were released on bail. 3. In view of the allegations made in the complaint, charge against the accused under Section 3K(i), 17, 18 and 33 punishable under Section 29 of Insecticide Act,1968 read with Rule 27(4) of Insecticide Rules, 1971 was framed, the contents of which were read over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Consequently, the prosecution witnesses were summoned. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Gurmit Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector, PW2 Shiv Baran, PW3 Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 8 Resham Singh, PW4 Paramjeet Singh, PW5 Jarnail Singh, PW6 Ram Saroop and thereafter the prosecution failed to conclude its evidence inspite of availing sufficient and effective opportunities including last and final opportunity and ultimately the evidence of prosecution was closed by order of the Court. 5. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which each and every incriminating circumstances appearing against him was put to them, but the accused denied the allegations and pleaded innocence and false implication. The accused further took the plea that the prosecution has filed the complaint after the lapse of statutory period of three years, so no offence is made out against them as the complaint is barred by the law of limitation and is not maintainable. The officials of the complainant did not purchase the pesticide regarding which sample was drawn as per the rules. Moreover, the officials tampered with the seal of the concerned pesticide having a weight of 5 Kg. After breaking the seal, the active ingredients of the insecticide were damaged as moisture and air affect the quality of insecticide. When they received the insecticide/ sample from the company, they stored the same in proper storage conditions. They could not knew with due diligence regarding the active Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 9 percentage contained therein, so if this sample after testing has found to be misbranded as alleged, they are under no liability whatsoever. 6. In defence the accused have not examined any witness and closed the same. 7. Learned APP for the State has submitted that the prosecution has duly proved its case against the accused by examining PW1 Gurmit Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector, Fazilka who visited the shop of M/s Bharat Pesticides, New Grain Market, Fazilka and took the sample of Cartaphydro choloride 4% GR Batch No.SPC8012. He deposed as per the case of prosecution. His version is duly supported and corroborated by the testimony of PW2 Shiv Baran, Baildar and PW6 Ram Saroop , ACEO Agriculture department Fazilka who accompanied PW1 Gurmit Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector at that time. PW3 Resham Singh, Agriculture Office, Ferozepur deposed regarding deposit of two parts of the sample by Shiv Baran Baildar with him and further deposit of the said sample for testing to Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana. PW4 Paramjit Singh deposed regarding the issuance of notice to accused persons. PW5 Jarnail Singh deposed regarding handing over the sample to him by Resham Singh Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur and further with Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 10 regard to deposit of the said sample in the office of Sr.Analysit Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana. Learned APP for the State further submitted that on the strength of this evidence, the prosecution has duly proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and thus the accused is liable to be convicted of the charges framed against him. 8. On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel for the accused has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. In this regard learned defence counsel for accused submitted that the proper procedure while taking of the sample has not been followed. Firstly, at the time of taking sample of any insecticide by the Insecticide Inspector then fair price thereof is to be paid by the Insecticide Inspector. But in the present case, no such fair price has been paid by the Insecticide Inspector at the time of taking the sample. Further, learned defence counsel for accused submitted as per the proviso to Section 22 sub Section 5, if the insecticide is such that it is likely to deteriorate or be otherwise damaged by exposer then Insecticide Inspector shall take three of the said containers after suitably marking the same, and where necessary, sealing them. In the present case PW1 Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 11 Gurmeet Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector has admitted that when the pesticide in question is exposed to moisture or sun rays its effectiveness is adversely effected. Even PW6 Ram Saroop ACEO has admitted that moisture effect the quality of the pesticide. So in such case the Insecticide Inspector was required to take the sample of original container but in the present case Insecticide Inspector has taken sample of 750 gram of Cartaphydro Chloride from the packing of 5 Kg and has further separated the said sample of 750 gram into three samples of 250 gram each, so the proper procedure while taking the sample has not been followed which also affect the quality of pesticide. Further at the time of sending the sample to the office of Chemical Analyst the Form No.XX and Form No.XXI has not been sent with the container. Learned defence counsel for accused further submitted that the present complaint is barred by limitation as in the present case the date of report is respectively 6.8.2008 and 10.11.2008 and Section 29 of Insecticides provides punishment for a period which may extend to two years in case of first offender and the complaint in the present case has been filed after a period of three years, so the present complaint is barred by law of limitation and submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons and they are liable Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 12 to be acquitted of the notice of accusations served upon them. 9. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 Gurmeet Singh Cheema,Insecticide Inspector and he has deposed that he was appointed as Agriculture Development Officer to take action Under Insecticide Act 1968 and was working as Insecticide Inspector Fazilka. He produced the notification for appointment as Insecticide Inspector as Ex.P1. He further deposed that on 10-07-2008 he alongwith Shri Ram Saroop ADO Fazilka visited the shop of M/S Bharat Pesticide New Grain Market Fazilka who was authorised dealer of M/S Swastik Pesticide Limited Muzfar Nagar U.P. Rajinder Kamboj sole proprietor of Firm was present in the premises of his firm at the time of inspection of the firm/shop. He introduced himself to the Rajinder Kamboj and intimated his desire to draw the sample of Cartap hydro Chloride 4% GR batch No. SPC8012 manufactured by Swastik Pesticide and marketed by Tatex chemical having manufacture date May 2008 and expiry date April 2010 and he took samples of 750 grams of the same and he prepared seizure memo in form No. XX Ex. P2 and Rajinder Kumar also signed the memo. The above mentioned 750 grams of Cartap hydro Chloride 4% GR was separated into three samples of 250 grams each and put into dry and clean polythene bags Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 13 separately and seizure memo Form No. XX1 Ex. P3 was prepared by him and the sample were also put in clothes bag and were sealed with seal bearing impression I.I. AGR.FZK in the presence of dealer. He asked the Rajinder Kumar to put his own seal on the sample but he refused to do so but he signed on the tag label which was kept under the seal. One part of the sample was handed over to Rajinder Kamboj proprietor of said firm and receipt in lieu of that was also taken. He further testified that on 11-07-2008 two parts of the sample were sent to the office of Chief Agriculture Officer Ferozepur by him vide letter Ex. P4 through Shiv Barn Baildar Fazilka vide letter No. 2471 dated 11-07-2008. The office of Ferozepur sent the sample for testing in the Insecticide Testing Lab Ludhiana and sample was found misbranded. The sample has active ingredients of 3.50% instead of 4% which did not confirm the relevant ISI specification in active ingredients. After receiving the sanction from the office of Joint Director Agriculture (PP) Chandigarh, he filed the complaint Ex. P5 in the court which is duly signed by him and he identify his signature at point Ex. P6. He further testified that he identify the accused Rajinder Kumar, Rajan Kumar and Surya Pal present in the court. 10. The prosecution further examined PW2 Shiv Baran and Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 14 he has deposed that on dated 11-07-2008 he alongwith his higher Official Gurmeet Singh Chima Insecticide Inspector Fazilka, Ram Saroop ADO visited the shop of M/S Bharat Pesticide New Grain Market Fazilka. Gurmeet Singh Chima Insecticide Inspector draw the sample. On the same day he submitted the sample at Chief Agriculture office Ferozepur vide letter No. 2471 dated 11-07-2008 which is already Ex. P4 11. The prosecution further examined PW3 Resham Singh Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur and he has deposed that on 11-07-2008 he was posted as Agriculture Development Offier(PP) Chief Agriculture Office Ferozepur. On that day Shiv Baran Baildar deposited two parts of sample duly sealed with seal IIAGRFZK alongwith documents. One part of seal sample was sent to Senior Analyst Insecticide Testing Laboratory Ludhiana vide letter No.8 dated 11-07-2008 Ex.PW3/A through Jarnail Singh Agriculture Sub Inspector. He further testified that on the same day ASI Jarnail Singh deposited the sample part at Laboratory Ludhiana and received receipt on letter Ex. PW3/A. He identify signature of Chief Agriculture Officer Sh. Rajinder Singh Brar. He further deposed that the letter also bears his signature and further process was completed by CAO, Ferozepur. Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 15 12. The prosecution further examined PW4 Paramjeet Singh Junior Assistant Chief Agriculture Office, Ferozepur and he has deposed that he is posted as Clerk in the office of Chief Agriculture Office, Ferozepur. He deposed that he has brought original record regarding issuance of Show cause notice to respondent by Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur. On receipt of analyst report, show cause notice dated 20-08-2008 to M/s Bharat Pesticide New Grain Market Fazilka Ex. PW4/A, show cause notice dated 20-08-2008 Ex. PW4/B and show cause notice dated 20-08-2008 Ex. PW4/C to M/s Tatex Chemical Satyam Mall 317 3rd floor Satellited Ahemadbad were issued to respondent by CAO Ferozepur. He identify signature of Sh Bakshish Singh Chahal the then CAO Ferozepur as he worked with him and deal with his record. 13. The prosecution further examined PW5 Jarnail Singh retired Sub Inspector and he has testified that on 11-07-2008 he was posted at Chief Agriculture Ferozepur as Baildar. On that day, Resham Singh Agriculture Officer Ferozepur handed over him one part of seal sample duly sealed with seal IIAGRFZK for deposit at Senior Analyst Insecticide Testing Laboratory Ludhiana vide letter No. 8 dated 11-07- Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 16 2008 Ex. PW3/A. He further deposed that on the same day he visited at Ludhiana Laboratory and deposited sample part intact there. He received receipt on the letter and on return he handed over the receipt to Resham Singh Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur. 14. PW6 Ram Saroop, ACEO, Agriculture department who accompanied PW1 Gurmit Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector duly corroborated and supported the version of PW1 Gurmeet Singh. 15. I have considered the respective submissions of learned APP for the State and learned defence counsel for the accused and have gone through the record carefully. 16. As per the case of prosecution on 10.07.2007 Sh.Gurmit Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector Fazilka along with Ram Saroop ACEO Agriculture department, Fazilka took the sample of Cartaphydro Chloride 4% G.R.Batch No.SPC8012 from the premises of M/s Bharat Pesticides, New Grain Market, Fazilka and the said sample was sent to Public Analyst for analysis and the sample was declared as misbranded as the active ingredients were 3.50% instead of 4% which does not confirm to the relevant ISI specification in active ingredients. 17. The first and foremost argument raised by learned defence Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 17 counsel for accused is that the proper procedure at the time of taking the sample has not been followed. Section 22 of the Insecticide Act provides the procedure to be followed by Insecticide Inspector. Section 22 Provides as follows:- (1) Where an Insecticide Inspector seizes any record, register or document under clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 21, she shall, as soon as may be, inform a Magistrate and take his orders as to the custody thereof. (2) Where an Insecticide Inspector take any action under clause (d) of sub section (1) of Section 21:- (a) he shall use all dispatch in ascertaining whether or not the insecticide or it sale, distribution or use contravenes any of the provisions of Section 18 and if it is ascertained that the insecticide or its sale, distribution or use does not so contravene, forthwith revoke the order passed under the said clause or, as the case may be, take such action as may be necessary for the return of the stock seized. (b) If he seizes the stock of the insecticide he shall, as soon as may be, inform, a Magistrate and take his order as to the custody thereof. (c) Without prejudice to the institution of any Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 18 prosecution, if the alleged contravention be such that the defect may be remedied by the possessor of the insecticide, he shall, or being satisfied that the defect has been so remedied, forthwith revoke his order and in case where the Insecticide Inspector has seized the stock insecticide he should as soon as may be inform a Magistrate and obtain his orders as to the release thereof. (3) Where an Insecticide Inspector take any sample of an insecticide, he shall tender the fair price thereof and may require a written acknowledgement therefor. (4) Where the price tendered under sub Section (3) is refused, or where the Insecticide Inspector seizes the stock of any insecticide under the clause(d) of sub section (1) of Section 21, he shall tender a receipt therefor in the prescribed form. (5) Where an insecticide inspector takes a sample of an insecticide for the purpose of test or analysis, he shall intimate such purpose in writing in the prescribed form to the person from whom he takes it and, in the presence of such person unless he willfully absentees himself, shall divide the sample into three portions and effectively seal and suitably mark the same and permit such person to add his own seal and mark to all or any of the portions so sealed and Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 19 marked. Provided that where the insecticide is made up in containers of small volume, instead of dividing a sample as aforesaid, the insecticide inspector may, and if the insecticide be such that it is likely to deteriorate or be otherwise damaged by exposure shall, take three of the said containers after suitably marking the same and, where necessary sealing them. (6) The Insecticide inspector shall restore one portion of a sample so divided or one container, as the case may be, to the person from whom he takes it and shall retain the remainder and dispose of the same as follows:- i) One portion or container, he shall forthwith send to the Insecticide Analyst for test or analysis and ii) the second, he shall produce to the court before which proceedings, if any, are instituted in respect of the insecticide. 18. So as per Section 22 sub Section (3) where any Insecticide Inspector take any sample of insecticide, he shall tender the fair price thereof and to take written acknowledgment thereof. But in the present case, neither the said fair price for taking of the sample has been paid nor any acknowledgment thereof has been taken. PW1 Gurmeet Singh Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 20 Cheema, Insecticide Inspector has been cross-examined in this regard and he has testified that he had purchased three packets of 250 gram each from a single packing of 5 Kg. He further testified that he does not remember that how much amount the pesticide meant for obtaining sample was purchased from the shop of accused No.1. The receipt to this effect is not on the court file. So, though he has testified that he purchased the three packets of 250 gram each from single packing of 5 Kg but he failed to disclose that what price was given by him to accused Rajinder Kamboj for purchase of said sample. He admitted that there is no receipt in this regard in the judicial file which means that fair price for purchasing the sample has not been paid. 19. Further, proviso to Section 22 sub Section 5 provides that where the insecticide is made up in a container of small volume, instead of dividing a sample as provided in sub section 5 the insecticide inspector may, and if the insecticide be such that it is likely to deteriorate or be otherwise damaged by exposer shall take three of the said containers after suitably marking the same, and where necessary, by sealing them. 20. PW1 Gurmeet Singh Cheema has duly admitted during his cross-examination that whenever the pesticide in question is exposed Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 21 to moisture or sunrise, its effectness is adversely effected. Similarly, PW6 Ram Saroop ACEO has also admitted that moisture affect the quality of pesticide. Admittedly the quality of insecticide of which the sample is taken is effected adversely when it is exposed to moisture. So in this case, the Insecticide Inspector was required to take the sample of original container as per the proviso to Section 22 sub section 5. But in the present case, the insecticide inspector has taken sample of 750 gram of Cartaphydro Chloride 4% G.R.Batch from the original packing of 5 Kg. and further separated the said sample of 750 gram into three samples of 250 grams each. PW1 Gurmeet Singh Cheema has duly admitted that whenever the pesticide in question is exposed to moisture or sunrise, its effectiveness is adversely effected. So the sample has not been drawn as per rules. After breaking of the seal, the active ingredients of the insecticide were damaged as moisture and air affect the quality of insecticide. 21. PW1 Gurmeet Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector has further testified that after handing over the sample to Baildar Shiv Baran, he has lost the dominion. He further testified that whether he (i.e. Shiv Baran) travel to Ferozepur by bus or by motorcycle. He further testified that he cannot tell the condition in which the sample Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 22 remained after handing over to his Baildar Shiv Baran. As per the case of prosecution, the Insecticide Inspector along with Shiv Baran and Ram Saroop visited the shop of M/s Bharat Pesticides on 10.07.2007 and collected the said sample on that day and further as per case of prosecution the sample was handed over by PW1 Gurmit Singh Cheema to Shiv Baran Baildar for deposit in the Chief Agriculture Office, Ferozepur. The prosecution has examined PW2 Shiv Baran but he gave a new version and he has testified that he along with higher official Gurmeet Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector and Ram Saroop ADO visited the shop of M/s Bharat Pesticides on 11.07.2008 and he further testified that on the same day he submitted the sample at Chief Agriculture Office, Ferozepur vide letter No.2471 dated 11.7.2008 Ex.P4. So he totally contradicted the case of prosecution because as per the case of prosecution and as per version of PW1 Gurmeet Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector they visited the shop of M/s Bharat Pesticides on 10.07.2008 and sample was also taken on the said day and was given to Shiv Baran for deposit at Chief Agriculture Office, Ferozepur. But as per version of PW2 Shiv Baran, they visited the shop of M/s Bharat Pesticides on 11.7.2008 and he also alleged that sample was also taken on 11.07.2008 and he deposited the sample on Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 23 11.7.2008. This contradiction has not been explained by the prosecution. PW2 Shiv Baran has nowhere testified that till the time the sample remained with him, he has not tampered with the same and further there is no explanation that why the sample was not deposited on 10.7.2008. Further, at the time of deposit of the said sample in the Chief Agriculture Office, Ferozpeur form No.XX and Form No.XXI has not been deposited. So, as discussed above, the proper procedure at the time of taking of sample and further sending the sample to the office of Senior Analyst Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana has not been followed. 22. Section 30 sub section 3 of Insecticide Act, 1968 provides as follows:- A person not being an importer or a manufacture of an insecticides or his agent for the distribution thereof shall not be liable for a contravention of any provision of this Act, if he proves:- (a) that he acquired the insecticide from an importer or a duly licensed manufacturer distributer 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 Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 24 (c) that the insecticide, while in his possession was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it. 23. In this regard learned defence counsel duly cross- examined PW1 Sh.Gurmeet Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector and he has testified that Bharat Pesticides accused No.1 is their licensee and at the time of their visit the license of firm was valid and in existence. The addition of Cartap Hydro Choloride was already made in the license of accused. The sample was in granual form. The sample was in stitched condition from the manufacture. The accused firm run by Rajinder Pal Kamboj is licensee dealer and has no role in the manufacturing process of the pesticides. The retailer and dealer cannot with due diligence regarding active ingredients of insecticides. 24. Further submission of the learned defence counsel for accused is that the present complaint is barred by limitation and in this regard learned defence counsel for the accused has placed reliance upon M/s Chandan Pesticides and another Vs. State of Punjab 2014(3)RCR(Criminal)949(P&H),813. In which it has been held as follows:- Insecticide Act, 1968 Section 29 offence punishable maximum for 2 years – Complaint filed after 3 years as limitation for Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 25 launching prosecution is 3 years. In Sub Section 29 of 1968 of Insecticides provides as under:- OFFENCES AND PUNISHMENT (1) Whoever:- (a) Imports, manufacturers, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes any insecticide deemed to be misbranded under sub-clause (1) or sub clause (111) or sub clause (v111) of clause (k) section 3 ; or (b) Imports or manufacturers any insecticide without a certificate of registration; or (c) manufactures, Sells, Stocks, or exhibits for sale or distributes an insecticide without a license ; or (d) Sells or distributes an insecticide, in contravention of Section 27 : or (e) causes an insecticide, the use of which has been prohibited under Section 27, to be used by any worker ; or (f) Obstructs an Insecticide Inspector in the exercise of his powers or discharge of his duties under this Act or rules made thereunder, shall be punishable:- (i)for the first offence imprisonment for a term which may be Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 26 extend to two years, or with fine which may be extend to two thousands rupees, or with both. (11) For the second and a subsequent offence with imprisonment for a term which may be extend to three yeas, with fine or with both. So, Section 29 (1)(f), for the first offender, it provides imprisonment for a term which may extend to two yeas. PW1 Gurmeet Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector has duly admitted that the accused are first offenders. Section 468 of Cr.P.C provides for bar to take cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. Section 468 f the Cr.P.C provides as follows:- (1) Except as otherwise provided else where in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be:- (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 27 years; (3) For the purpose of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to the offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more sever punishment or, as the case may be, the most sever punishment. 25. In the present case, the sample was taken on 10.07.2008, the reports vide which the sample was declared as misbranded are dated 6.8.2008 and 10.11.2008 and the complaint has been filed on 29.01.2013. As per provision of Section 29 of Insecticide Act, the maximum punishment is two years and as such the same is barred by limitation. 26. In view of the above discussion and case law relied upon, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the notice of accusations against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Hence, the they are hereby acquitted of the notice of accusations served upon them. Case property if any be dealt with as per rules, after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any, preferred against this judgment. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance and be put up as Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 28 and when accused No.4 T.V.Anurudan appears or arrested in this case. -Sd/- Pronounced in open court Parminder Kaur Dated:28.03.2017 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, (Sanjeev Narang) Fazilka (Stenographer-II) UID No.PB0268 Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 29 Present: Sh.Bikramjit Singh, learned APP for the State. Accused No.2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No.1 also on bail with counsel Sh.Pardeep Kataria, Advocate. Surya Pal accused No.5 in person on behalf of accused No.3 on bail with counsel Sh.Pardeep Kataria, Advocate. Rajan on behalf of accused No.5 on bail with Sh.Pardeep Kataria, Advocate. Accused No.4 declared as proclaimed person. No defence evidence of accused is present today. Accused closed their defence evidence. Arguments heard. Vide my separate detailed judgment of today, all the accused(except accused No.4) have been acquitted as stated therein. Case property be dealt with as per rules, after expiry of period of appeal, revision, if any preferred against this judgment. File be consigned to the record room after due compilation and be put up as and when accused T.V.Anurudan appears or arrested in this case. Pronounced in open court Parminder Kaur Dated:28.03.2017 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, (Sanjeev Narang) Fazilka (Stenographer-II) (UID No.PB0268) Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. |
| Order Date | 28-03-2017 |
| 123 State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 1 In the Court of Ms.Parminder Kaur, PCS, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka. (UID No.PB0268) Crl. Case No.21-2 of 29.01.2013. CIS No.COMA/701/2013. Date of Decision: 28.03.2017. State through Gurmit Singh Cheema Insecticide Inspector, Fazilka District Fazilka. ----Complainant. Versus State Vs. 1. M/s Bharat Pesticies, New Grain Market, Fazilka through its Sole proprietor and responsible person Sh.Rajinder Kamboj -- Firm 2. Rajinder Kamboj son of Chamba Ram Sole Proprietor and responsible person of M/s Bharat Pesticides New Grain Market, Fazilka, District Fazilka. --Dealer 3 M/s Swastik Pesticides Ltd.Bhopa Road, Muzafarnagar (U.P.)through Sh.Surya Pal Singh son of Sh.Begam Singh resident of 382 Patel Nagar New Mandi Muzaffarnagar (U.P.)Director and responsible officer for conduct of business, Sh.T.V.Anurudan son of Sh.K.V. Vasu resident care of M/s Swastic Pesticides Ltd.Bhopa Road, Muzafarnagar (U.P.) Chemist and responsible officer of Quality Control of M/s Swastic Pesticides Ltd. Muzafarnagar (U.P.) 4. Sh.Surya Pal Singh son of Sh.Begram Singh resident of 382 Patel Nagar New Mandi Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) Director and responsible officer for conduct of business, Sh.T.V.Anurudan son of Sh.K.V.Vasu resident care of M/s Swastik Pesticides Ltd.Bhopa Road, Muzafarnagar. (U.P.) Chemist and responsible officer of Quality control of M/s Swastik Pesticides Ltd.Muzafarnagar. M/s Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 2 M/s Tatex Chemical Satyam Mall 317 3rd Floor opposite Vaishvaishvar Mahadev Mandir, Jodhpur Satelite Ahmadabad through Sh.Sh.Surya Pal Singh son of Sh.Begam Singh resident of Patel Nagar, New Mandi Muzaffarnagar(U.P.) Proprietor and responsible for conduct of business Sh/Rajan Kumar son of Sh.Bishan Sawroop resident of 1214 Subhash Gali Bathinda Godown Incharge of M/s Tatex Chemical at Bathinda. 5. Sh.Surya Pal Singh son of Sh.Begam Singh resident of Patel Nagar, New Mandi Mufaffar Nagar(U.P.), Director and responsible officer for conduct of business, Sh.Rajan Kumar son of Bishan Sawroop resident of 1214 Subhash Gali Bathinda Godown Incharge of M/s Tatex Chemical at Bathinda. ---Accused. Complaint U/S 3-K(1), 17, 18, 33 punishable U/S 29 of Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(4) of Insecticides Rule, 1971. *** Present: Sh.Bikramjit Singh, learned APP for the State. Accused No.2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No.1 also on bail with counsel Sh.Pardeep Kataria, Advocate. Surya Pal accused No.4 & 5 in person and on behalf of accused No.3 on bail with counsel Sh.Pardeep Kataria, Advocate. Rajan Kumar responsible officer for accused No.5 on bail with Sh.Pardeep Kataria, Advocate. Accused T.V.Anurudan son of Sh.K.V.Vasu declared as proclaimed person. JUDGMENT/ 1. The present complaint has been filed through Sh.Gurmit Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector alleging that he was posted at Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 3 Fazilka and authorized to file the present complaint. That M/s Bharat Pesticides, New Grain Market, Fazilka is holding valid Insecticide License No.3972 dated 24.04.2006 issued by the Licensing Authority i.e. Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur. Sh.Rajinder Kamboj son of Sh.Chamba Ram resident of village Dhni Karnail Singh Abohar, District Fazilka is Sole Proprietor of above said firm and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm as per record. On 10.07.2007, he along with Sh.Ram Saroop A.D.O.Fazilka in discharge of his official duty visited the premises of M/s Bharat Pesticides, New Grain Market, Fazilka who is authorized dealer of M/s Swastik Pesticides Ltd. Muzaffarnagar (UP). Sh.Rajinder Kamboj Sole Proprietor of the firm was present in the premises of his firm at the time of inspection of the firm. He introduced himself to Rajinder Kamboj Sole Proprietor of the said firm as Insecticide Inspector Fazilka and intimated his desire to draw sample of Cartaphydro Chloride 4% G.R.Batch No.SPC8012 manufacture date May 2008 and expiry date April 2010 manufactured by M/s Tatex Chemical Satyam Mall 317 3rd Floor opposite Vaishvaishvar Mahadev Mandir, Jodhpur Satelite Ahmadabad of above said pesticides. Sample was taken and he prepared seizure memo in form No.XX. The proprietor of the firm put Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 4 his signatures on form No.XX and three packing of 250 gram each were put in dry and clean polythene bags separately and seizure memo form No.XXI was also put in the cloth bags and the samples were sealed having impressions I.I.AGR.FZK in the presence of the dealer. He was asked to put his own seal on the sample, but he refused to do so, but he signed on the tag label, which was kept under the seal. One part of the sample was handed over to Rajinder Kamboj, Proprietor of the said firm and receipt in lieu of this was also taken in form No.XX. The same was taken as per ISI specification according to procedure laid down in the Insecticide Act. Two parts of sample were sent to the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur by Sh.Shiv Barn Beldar, Fazilka vide letter No.2471 dated 11.7.2008 and handed over to ADO PP Ferozepur in the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur. One part of the sealed sample was sent to Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana vide letter No.08 dated 11.7.2008 ADO (PP) by Jarnail Singh ASI in the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur. Cartaphydro Chloride 4% GR Batch No.SPC8012 manufactured date May 2008 and expiry date April,2010 was manufactured by M/s Tatex Chemical Satyam Mall 317 3rd Floor opposite Vaishvaishvar Mahadev Mandir, Jodhpur Satelite Ahmadabad. Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 5 It was found misbranded by Sr.Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana as Active ingredients were 2.50% instead of 4% which does not confirm to the relevant ISI specification in active ingredients. It was found misbranded under Section 3(K)(i) of the Insecticide Act 1968 as the container of Cartaphydro Chloride 4% GR did not confirm with level claimed as required by law. The dealer M/s Bharat Pesticides New Grain Makret Fazilka and manufacture committed an offence under Section 3(k)(i)17,18 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and rules 1971. That the copy of the Analyst Report was sent to accused dealer and manufacturer respectively through Chief Agriculture Officer Office along with show cause notice bearing No.7573 dated 20.08.2008 and 7578 dated 20.08.2008 respectively dispatched by the dispatcher in the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur. The dealer and manufactures have got re-tested the second part of the above said sample through Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur vide letter No.ADO(PP) 9651 dated 27.10.2008 from Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Faridabad. The second part of sample was again found as misbranded by the Senior Analyst, Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Faridabad as the active ingredient was found 2.75%. Necessary sanction from competent authority has already been Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 6 obtained under Section 31(1) of Insecticides Act 1968 for filing prosecution against all the accused. The misbranded Chloride 4% GR Batch No.SPC8012 is having manufacture date May, 2008 and expiry date April-2010 in 5Kg. packing manufactured by Tatex Chemical Satyam Mall 317 3rd Floor opposite Vaishvaishvar Mahadev Mandir, Jodhpur Satelite Ahmadabad and by supplying misbranded insecticide through M/s Bharat Pesticides, New Grain Market, Fazilka, the said manufacturer has committed offence and Sh.Surya Pal Singh son of Sh.Begam Singh resident of 382 Patel Nagar, New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) being Director and responsible officer for that Sh.T.V.Anurudan son of Sh.K.V.Vasu resident of c/o M/s Swastic Pesticides Ltd.3 KM Bhopa road, Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) is Chemist and responsible officer for quality control of M/s Swastik Pesticides Ltd. Muzaffarnagar. M/s Tatex Chemical Satyam Mall 317 3rd Floor opposite Vaishvaishvar Mahadev Mandir, Jodhpur Satelite Ahmadabad through Sh.Surya Pal Singh son fo Sh.Begam Singh resident of 382 Patel Nagar, New Mandi Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) Proprietor and responsible for conduct of business. Sh.Rajan Kumar son of Sh.Bishan Sawroop resident of 1214 Subhash Gali Bathinda Godwon Incharge of M/s Tatex Chemical at Bathinda is the responsible person of Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 7 manufacturer u/s 31(i) of Insecticide Act 1968. So, he has committed an offence under Section 3(k)(i)17,18 and 33 of the Insecticide Act 1968 and rules 1971 by manufacturing, storing and selling misbranded insecticides. The dealer and manufacturer by selling above misbranded insecticide jointly committed offence under Section 29 of Insecticide Act, 1968. Hence, the present complaint. 2. After institution of the complaint, accused T.V.Anurudan did not appear despite repeated processes and after following due procedure, he was ordered to be declared as proclaimed offender, whereas, remaining accused put their appearance and they were released on bail. 3. In view of the allegations made in the complaint, charge against the accused under Section 3K(i), 17, 18 and 33 punishable under Section 29 of Insecticide Act,1968 read with Rule 27(4) of Insecticide Rules, 1971 was framed, the contents of which were read over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Consequently, the prosecution witnesses were summoned. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Gurmit Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector, PW2 Shiv Baran, PW3 Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 8 Resham Singh, PW4 Paramjeet Singh, PW5 Jarnail Singh, PW6 Ram Saroop and thereafter the prosecution failed to conclude its evidence inspite of availing sufficient and effective opportunities including last and final opportunity and ultimately the evidence of prosecution was closed by order of the Court. 5. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which each and every incriminating circumstances appearing against him was put to them, but the accused denied the allegations and pleaded innocence and false implication. The accused further took the plea that the prosecution has filed the complaint after the lapse of statutory period of three years, so no offence is made out against them as the complaint is barred by the law of limitation and is not maintainable. The officials of the complainant did not purchase the pesticide regarding which sample was drawn as per the rules. Moreover, the officials tampered with the seal of the concerned pesticide having a weight of 5 Kg. After breaking the seal, the active ingredients of the insecticide were damaged as moisture and air affect the quality of insecticide. When they received the insecticide/ sample from the company, they stored the same in proper storage conditions. They could not knew with due diligence regarding the active Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 9 percentage contained therein, so if this sample after testing has found to be misbranded as alleged, they are under no liability whatsoever. 6. In defence the accused have not examined any witness and closed the same. 7. Learned APP for the State has submitted that the prosecution has duly proved its case against the accused by examining PW1 Gurmit Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector, Fazilka who visited the shop of M/s Bharat Pesticides, New Grain Market, Fazilka and took the sample of Cartaphydro choloride 4% GR Batch No.SPC8012. He deposed as per the case of prosecution. His version is duly supported and corroborated by the testimony of PW2 Shiv Baran, Baildar and PW6 Ram Saroop , ACEO Agriculture department Fazilka who accompanied PW1 Gurmit Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector at that time. PW3 Resham Singh, Agriculture Office, Ferozepur deposed regarding deposit of two parts of the sample by Shiv Baran Baildar with him and further deposit of the said sample for testing to Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana. PW4 Paramjit Singh deposed regarding the issuance of notice to accused persons. PW5 Jarnail Singh deposed regarding handing over the sample to him by Resham Singh Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur and further with Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 10 regard to deposit of the said sample in the office of Sr.Analysit Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana. Learned APP for the State further submitted that on the strength of this evidence, the prosecution has duly proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and thus the accused is liable to be convicted of the charges framed against him. 8. On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel for the accused has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. In this regard learned defence counsel for accused submitted that the proper procedure while taking of the sample has not been followed. Firstly, at the time of taking sample of any insecticide by the Insecticide Inspector then fair price thereof is to be paid by the Insecticide Inspector. But in the present case, no such fair price has been paid by the Insecticide Inspector at the time of taking the sample. Further, learned defence counsel for accused submitted as per the proviso to Section 22 sub Section 5, if the insecticide is such that it is likely to deteriorate or be otherwise damaged by exposer then Insecticide Inspector shall take three of the said containers after suitably marking the same, and where necessary, sealing them. In the present case PW1 Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 11 Gurmeet Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector has admitted that when the pesticide in question is exposed to moisture or sun rays its effectiveness is adversely effected. Even PW6 Ram Saroop ACEO has admitted that moisture effect the quality of the pesticide. So in such case the Insecticide Inspector was required to take the sample of original container but in the present case Insecticide Inspector has taken sample of 750 gram of Cartaphydro Chloride from the packing of 5 Kg and has further separated the said sample of 750 gram into three samples of 250 gram each, so the proper procedure while taking the sample has not been followed which also affect the quality of pesticide. Further at the time of sending the sample to the office of Chemical Analyst the Form No.XX and Form No.XXI has not been sent with the container. Learned defence counsel for accused further submitted that the present complaint is barred by limitation as in the present case the date of report is respectively 6.8.2008 and 10.11.2008 and Section 29 of Insecticides provides punishment for a period which may extend to two years in case of first offender and the complaint in the present case has been filed after a period of three years, so the present complaint is barred by law of limitation and submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons and they are liable Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 12 to be acquitted of the notice of accusations served upon them. 9. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 Gurmeet Singh Cheema,Insecticide Inspector and he has deposed that he was appointed as Agriculture Development Officer to take action Under Insecticide Act 1968 and was working as Insecticide Inspector Fazilka. He produced the notification for appointment as Insecticide Inspector as Ex.P1. He further deposed that on 10-07-2008 he alongwith Shri Ram Saroop ADO Fazilka visited the shop of M/S Bharat Pesticide New Grain Market Fazilka who was authorised dealer of M/S Swastik Pesticide Limited Muzfar Nagar U.P. Rajinder Kamboj sole proprietor of Firm was present in the premises of his firm at the time of inspection of the firm/shop. He introduced himself to the Rajinder Kamboj and intimated his desire to draw the sample of Cartap hydro Chloride 4% GR batch No. SPC8012 manufactured by Swastik Pesticide and marketed by Tatex chemical having manufacture date May 2008 and expiry date April 2010 and he took samples of 750 grams of the same and he prepared seizure memo in form No. XX Ex. P2 and Rajinder Kumar also signed the memo. The above mentioned 750 grams of Cartap hydro Chloride 4% GR was separated into three samples of 250 grams each and put into dry and clean polythene bags Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 13 separately and seizure memo Form No. XX1 Ex. P3 was prepared by him and the sample were also put in clothes bag and were sealed with seal bearing impression I.I. AGR.FZK in the presence of dealer. He asked the Rajinder Kumar to put his own seal on the sample but he refused to do so but he signed on the tag label which was kept under the seal. One part of the sample was handed over to Rajinder Kamboj proprietor of said firm and receipt in lieu of that was also taken. He further testified that on 11-07-2008 two parts of the sample were sent to the office of Chief Agriculture Officer Ferozepur by him vide letter Ex. P4 through Shiv Barn Baildar Fazilka vide letter No. 2471 dated 11-07-2008. The office of Ferozepur sent the sample for testing in the Insecticide Testing Lab Ludhiana and sample was found misbranded. The sample has active ingredients of 3.50% instead of 4% which did not confirm the relevant ISI specification in active ingredients. After receiving the sanction from the office of Joint Director Agriculture (PP) Chandigarh, he filed the complaint Ex. P5 in the court which is duly signed by him and he identify his signature at point Ex. P6. He further testified that he identify the accused Rajinder Kumar, Rajan Kumar and Surya Pal present in the court. 10. The prosecution further examined PW2 Shiv Baran and Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 14 he has deposed that on dated 11-07-2008 he alongwith his higher Official Gurmeet Singh Chima Insecticide Inspector Fazilka, Ram Saroop ADO visited the shop of M/S Bharat Pesticide New Grain Market Fazilka. Gurmeet Singh Chima Insecticide Inspector draw the sample. On the same day he submitted the sample at Chief Agriculture office Ferozepur vide letter No. 2471 dated 11-07-2008 which is already Ex. P4 11. The prosecution further examined PW3 Resham Singh Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur and he has deposed that on 11-07-2008 he was posted as Agriculture Development Offier(PP) Chief Agriculture Office Ferozepur. On that day Shiv Baran Baildar deposited two parts of sample duly sealed with seal IIAGRFZK alongwith documents. One part of seal sample was sent to Senior Analyst Insecticide Testing Laboratory Ludhiana vide letter No.8 dated 11-07-2008 Ex.PW3/A through Jarnail Singh Agriculture Sub Inspector. He further testified that on the same day ASI Jarnail Singh deposited the sample part at Laboratory Ludhiana and received receipt on letter Ex. PW3/A. He identify signature of Chief Agriculture Officer Sh. Rajinder Singh Brar. He further deposed that the letter also bears his signature and further process was completed by CAO, Ferozepur. Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 15 12. The prosecution further examined PW4 Paramjeet Singh Junior Assistant Chief Agriculture Office, Ferozepur and he has deposed that he is posted as Clerk in the office of Chief Agriculture Office, Ferozepur. He deposed that he has brought original record regarding issuance of Show cause notice to respondent by Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur. On receipt of analyst report, show cause notice dated 20-08-2008 to M/s Bharat Pesticide New Grain Market Fazilka Ex. PW4/A, show cause notice dated 20-08-2008 Ex. PW4/B and show cause notice dated 20-08-2008 Ex. PW4/C to M/s Tatex Chemical Satyam Mall 317 3rd floor Satellited Ahemadbad were issued to respondent by CAO Ferozepur. He identify signature of Sh Bakshish Singh Chahal the then CAO Ferozepur as he worked with him and deal with his record. 13. The prosecution further examined PW5 Jarnail Singh retired Sub Inspector and he has testified that on 11-07-2008 he was posted at Chief Agriculture Ferozepur as Baildar. On that day, Resham Singh Agriculture Officer Ferozepur handed over him one part of seal sample duly sealed with seal IIAGRFZK for deposit at Senior Analyst Insecticide Testing Laboratory Ludhiana vide letter No. 8 dated 11-07- Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 16 2008 Ex. PW3/A. He further deposed that on the same day he visited at Ludhiana Laboratory and deposited sample part intact there. He received receipt on the letter and on return he handed over the receipt to Resham Singh Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur. 14. PW6 Ram Saroop, ACEO, Agriculture department who accompanied PW1 Gurmit Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector duly corroborated and supported the version of PW1 Gurmeet Singh. 15. I have considered the respective submissions of learned APP for the State and learned defence counsel for the accused and have gone through the record carefully. 16. As per the case of prosecution on 10.07.2007 Sh.Gurmit Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector Fazilka along with Ram Saroop ACEO Agriculture department, Fazilka took the sample of Cartaphydro Chloride 4% G.R.Batch No.SPC8012 from the premises of M/s Bharat Pesticides, New Grain Market, Fazilka and the said sample was sent to Public Analyst for analysis and the sample was declared as misbranded as the active ingredients were 3.50% instead of 4% which does not confirm to the relevant ISI specification in active ingredients. 17. The first and foremost argument raised by learned defence Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 17 counsel for accused is that the proper procedure at the time of taking the sample has not been followed. Section 22 of the Insecticide Act provides the procedure to be followed by Insecticide Inspector. Section 22 Provides as follows:- (1) Where an Insecticide Inspector seizes any record, register or document under clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 21, she shall, as soon as may be, inform a Magistrate and take his orders as to the custody thereof. (2) Where an Insecticide Inspector take any action under clause (d) of sub section (1) of Section 21:- (a) he shall use all dispatch in ascertaining whether or not the insecticide or it sale, distribution or use contravenes any of the provisions of Section 18 and if it is ascertained that the insecticide or its sale, distribution or use does not so contravene, forthwith revoke the order passed under the said clause or, as the case may be, take such action as may be necessary for the return of the stock seized. (b) If he seizes the stock of the insecticide he shall, as soon as may be, inform, a Magistrate and take his order as to the custody thereof. (c) Without prejudice to the institution of any Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 18 prosecution, if the alleged contravention be such that the defect may be remedied by the possessor of the insecticide, he shall, or being satisfied that the defect has been so remedied, forthwith revoke his order and in case where the Insecticide Inspector has seized the stock insecticide he should as soon as may be inform a Magistrate and obtain his orders as to the release thereof. (3) Where an Insecticide Inspector take any sample of an insecticide, he shall tender the fair price thereof and may require a written acknowledgement therefor. (4) Where the price tendered under sub Section (3) is refused, or where the Insecticide Inspector seizes the stock of any insecticide under the clause(d) of sub section (1) of Section 21, he shall tender a receipt therefor in the prescribed form. (5) Where an insecticide inspector takes a sample of an insecticide for the purpose of test or analysis, he shall intimate such purpose in writing in the prescribed form to the person from whom he takes it and, in the presence of such person unless he willfully absentees himself, shall divide the sample into three portions and effectively seal and suitably mark the same and permit such person to add his own seal and mark to all or any of the portions so sealed and Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 19 marked. Provided that where the insecticide is made up in containers of small volume, instead of dividing a sample as aforesaid, the insecticide inspector may, and if the insecticide be such that it is likely to deteriorate or be otherwise damaged by exposure shall, take three of the said containers after suitably marking the same and, where necessary sealing them. (6) The Insecticide inspector shall restore one portion of a sample so divided or one container, as the case may be, to the person from whom he takes it and shall retain the remainder and dispose of the same as follows:- i) One portion or container, he shall forthwith send to the Insecticide Analyst for test or analysis and ii) the second, he shall produce to the court before which proceedings, if any, are instituted in respect of the insecticide. 18. So as per Section 22 sub Section (3) where any Insecticide Inspector take any sample of insecticide, he shall tender the fair price thereof and to take written acknowledgment thereof. But in the present case, neither the said fair price for taking of the sample has been paid nor any acknowledgment thereof has been taken. PW1 Gurmeet Singh Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 20 Cheema, Insecticide Inspector has been cross-examined in this regard and he has testified that he had purchased three packets of 250 gram each from a single packing of 5 Kg. He further testified that he does not remember that how much amount the pesticide meant for obtaining sample was purchased from the shop of accused No.1. The receipt to this effect is not on the court file. So, though he has testified that he purchased the three packets of 250 gram each from single packing of 5 Kg but he failed to disclose that what price was given by him to accused Rajinder Kamboj for purchase of said sample. He admitted that there is no receipt in this regard in the judicial file which means that fair price for purchasing the sample has not been paid. 19. Further, proviso to Section 22 sub Section 5 provides that where the insecticide is made up in a container of small volume, instead of dividing a sample as provided in sub section 5 the insecticide inspector may, and if the insecticide be such that it is likely to deteriorate or be otherwise damaged by exposer shall take three of the said containers after suitably marking the same, and where necessary, by sealing them. 20. PW1 Gurmeet Singh Cheema has duly admitted during his cross-examination that whenever the pesticide in question is exposed Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 21 to moisture or sunrise, its effectness is adversely effected. Similarly, PW6 Ram Saroop ACEO has also admitted that moisture affect the quality of pesticide. Admittedly the quality of insecticide of which the sample is taken is effected adversely when it is exposed to moisture. So in this case, the Insecticide Inspector was required to take the sample of original container as per the proviso to Section 22 sub section 5. But in the present case, the insecticide inspector has taken sample of 750 gram of Cartaphydro Chloride 4% G.R.Batch from the original packing of 5 Kg. and further separated the said sample of 750 gram into three samples of 250 grams each. PW1 Gurmeet Singh Cheema has duly admitted that whenever the pesticide in question is exposed to moisture or sunrise, its effectiveness is adversely effected. So the sample has not been drawn as per rules. After breaking of the seal, the active ingredients of the insecticide were damaged as moisture and air affect the quality of insecticide. 21. PW1 Gurmeet Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector has further testified that after handing over the sample to Baildar Shiv Baran, he has lost the dominion. He further testified that whether he (i.e. Shiv Baran) travel to Ferozepur by bus or by motorcycle. He further testified that he cannot tell the condition in which the sample Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 22 remained after handing over to his Baildar Shiv Baran. As per the case of prosecution, the Insecticide Inspector along with Shiv Baran and Ram Saroop visited the shop of M/s Bharat Pesticides on 10.07.2007 and collected the said sample on that day and further as per case of prosecution the sample was handed over by PW1 Gurmit Singh Cheema to Shiv Baran Baildar for deposit in the Chief Agriculture Office, Ferozepur. The prosecution has examined PW2 Shiv Baran but he gave a new version and he has testified that he along with higher official Gurmeet Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector and Ram Saroop ADO visited the shop of M/s Bharat Pesticides on 11.07.2008 and he further testified that on the same day he submitted the sample at Chief Agriculture Office, Ferozepur vide letter No.2471 dated 11.7.2008 Ex.P4. So he totally contradicted the case of prosecution because as per the case of prosecution and as per version of PW1 Gurmeet Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector they visited the shop of M/s Bharat Pesticides on 10.07.2008 and sample was also taken on the said day and was given to Shiv Baran for deposit at Chief Agriculture Office, Ferozepur. But as per version of PW2 Shiv Baran, they visited the shop of M/s Bharat Pesticides on 11.7.2008 and he also alleged that sample was also taken on 11.07.2008 and he deposited the sample on Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 23 11.7.2008. This contradiction has not been explained by the prosecution. PW2 Shiv Baran has nowhere testified that till the time the sample remained with him, he has not tampered with the same and further there is no explanation that why the sample was not deposited on 10.7.2008. Further, at the time of deposit of the said sample in the Chief Agriculture Office, Ferozpeur form No.XX and Form No.XXI has not been deposited. So, as discussed above, the proper procedure at the time of taking of sample and further sending the sample to the office of Senior Analyst Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana has not been followed. 22. Section 30 sub section 3 of Insecticide Act, 1968 provides as follows:- A person not being an importer or a manufacture of an insecticides or his agent for the distribution thereof shall not be liable for a contravention of any provision of this Act, if he proves:- (a) that he acquired the insecticide from an importer or a duly licensed manufacturer distributer 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 Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 24 (c) that the insecticide, while in his possession was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it. 23. In this regard learned defence counsel duly cross- examined PW1 Sh.Gurmeet Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector and he has testified that Bharat Pesticides accused No.1 is their licensee and at the time of their visit the license of firm was valid and in existence. The addition of Cartap Hydro Choloride was already made in the license of accused. The sample was in granual form. The sample was in stitched condition from the manufacture. The accused firm run by Rajinder Pal Kamboj is licensee dealer and has no role in the manufacturing process of the pesticides. The retailer and dealer cannot with due diligence regarding active ingredients of insecticides. 24. Further submission of the learned defence counsel for accused is that the present complaint is barred by limitation and in this regard learned defence counsel for the accused has placed reliance upon M/s Chandan Pesticides and another Vs. State of Punjab 2014(3)RCR(Criminal)949(P&H),813. In which it has been held as follows:- Insecticide Act, 1968 Section 29 offence punishable maximum for 2 years – Complaint filed after 3 years as limitation for Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 25 launching prosecution is 3 years. In Sub Section 29 of 1968 of Insecticides provides as under:- OFFENCES AND PUNISHMENT (1) Whoever:- (a) Imports, manufacturers, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes any insecticide deemed to be misbranded under sub-clause (1) or sub clause (111) or sub clause (v111) of clause (k) section 3 ; or (b) Imports or manufacturers any insecticide without a certificate of registration; or (c) manufactures, Sells, Stocks, or exhibits for sale or distributes an insecticide without a license ; or (d) Sells or distributes an insecticide, in contravention of Section 27 : or (e) causes an insecticide, the use of which has been prohibited under Section 27, to be used by any worker ; or (f) Obstructs an Insecticide Inspector in the exercise of his powers or discharge of his duties under this Act or rules made thereunder, shall be punishable:- (i)for the first offence imprisonment for a term which may be Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 26 extend to two years, or with fine which may be extend to two thousands rupees, or with both. (11) For the second and a subsequent offence with imprisonment for a term which may be extend to three yeas, with fine or with both. So, Section 29 (1)(f), for the first offender, it provides imprisonment for a term which may extend to two yeas. PW1 Gurmeet Singh Cheema, Insecticide Inspector has duly admitted that the accused are first offenders. Section 468 of Cr.P.C provides for bar to take cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. Section 468 f the Cr.P.C provides as follows:- (1) Except as otherwise provided else where in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be:- (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 27 years; (3) For the purpose of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to the offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more sever punishment or, as the case may be, the most sever punishment. 25. In the present case, the sample was taken on 10.07.2008, the reports vide which the sample was declared as misbranded are dated 6.8.2008 and 10.11.2008 and the complaint has been filed on 29.01.2013. As per provision of Section 29 of Insecticide Act, the maximum punishment is two years and as such the same is barred by limitation. 26. In view of the above discussion and case law relied upon, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the notice of accusations against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Hence, the they are hereby acquitted of the notice of accusations served upon them. Case property if any be dealt with as per rules, after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any, preferred against this judgment. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance and be put up as Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 28 and when accused No.4 T.V.Anurudan appears or arrested in this case. -Sd/- Pronounced in open court Parminder Kaur Dated:28.03.2017 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, (Sanjeev Narang) Fazilka (Stenographer-II) UID No.PB0268 Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. State Vs. M/s Bharat Pesticides 29 Present: Sh.Bikramjit Singh, learned APP for the State. Accused No.2 Rajinder Kamboj in person and on behalf of accused No.1 also on bail with counsel Sh.Pardeep Kataria, Advocate. Surya Pal accused No.5 in person on behalf of accused No.3 on bail with counsel Sh.Pardeep Kataria, Advocate. Rajan on behalf of accused No.5 on bail with Sh.Pardeep Kataria, Advocate. Accused No.4 declared as proclaimed person. No defence evidence of accused is present today. Accused closed their defence evidence. Arguments heard. Vide my separate detailed judgment of today, all the accused(except accused No.4) have been acquitted as stated therein. Case property be dealt with as per rules, after expiry of period of appeal, revision, if any preferred against this judgment. File be consigned to the record room after due compilation and be put up as and when accused T.V.Anurudan appears or arrested in this case. Pronounced in open court Parminder Kaur Dated:28.03.2017 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, (Sanjeev Narang) Fazilka (Stenographer-II) (UID No.PB0268) Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, 28.03.2017. |
Similar Cases
-
State Through Notified Insecticide Inspector-Cum-Assistant Plant Protection Officer
VsM/S Indo Gulf Crop Sciences Ltd.
-
Ms Kothari Finance, Revenue Sharing Partner With Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.
VsNitu Singh
-
Bajaj Finanace Ltd
VsNeeraj Kumar
-
Ms Universal Feeds India Pvt Ltd
VsRajesh Kumar
-
Bajaj Finance Ltd.
VsJagtar Singh
-
Punjab Pollution Control Board
VsMs Pioneer High Grade Homes Pvt Ltd
}
Frequently Asked Questions
The Petitioner in case State vs Ms Sawastik Pesticides Ltd is State.
The Respondent in case State vs Ms Sawastik Pesticides Ltd is Ms Sawastik Pesticides Ltd and 4 more.
The case against Ms Sawastik Pesticides Ltdwas filed on 29-01-2013 by State.
The status of case State against Ms Sawastik Pesticides Ltd is Case Disposed.