Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 145 (PNJ)

Ramesh Chand Bansal v. State of Punjab

2014-01-17

REKHA MITTAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J.:- The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 193-2 dated 19.12.1997 for offence under Sections 3(K)(1), 17, 18, 29, 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short “the Act”) read with Rule 10, 27(5) of Insecticides Rules, 1971 (for short “The Rules”)(Annexure P-10), summoning order dated 19.12.1997 (Annexure P-13) and proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that State of Punjab through Insecticides Inspector, Muktsar filed the aforesaid complaint against three sets of respondents namely M/s Chacha Chiranji Lal & Sons, Muktsar, dealer, M/s Dinkar Agro Association through its responsible person Sh. Vimal Bansal and the present petitioners, distributors and M/s Eagle Chemical Private Limited through its responsible persons being manufacturer of insecticides. As per averments in the complaint, on 30.1.1995, Teja Singh Sandhu, Insecticides Inspector, along with Lal Singh Sewadar of the office of Agriculture Department, Muktsar, inspected the shop of accused No. 1, described as dealer. The complainant disclosed his identity to Himachal Raj, owner of accused No. 1 and purchased three pieces of insecticides. The insecticides were manufactured by M/s Eagle Chemical Private Limited, Secunderabad, its batch No. was 103, date of manufacture August 1994 and dated of expiry July 1996. M/s Eagle Chemical Private Limited, Secunderbad Cyper 10% E.C. was printed on the containers. The dealer had purchased insecticides vide bill No. 000030 dated 22.10.1994 from M/s Dinkar Agro Association, Muktsar. The samples were sealed in the presence of Himachal Raj and other witnesses. It was sent to insecticides testing laboratory, Ludhiana and as per the report, it was found below ‘IS specification’ and was declared misbranded. Its result was 4.47% instead of 10% E.C. Show cause notice was issued upon the dealer and the manufacturer along with copies of test report as per Section 3(k)(1) of the Act. The second part of the sample was got tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad on the request of distributor. The sample was below ‘IS specification’ and its result was 4.5%. 3. The accused were summoned to face trial for the aforesaid offences. Only Vimal Bansal, one of the responsible persons of M/s Dinkar Agro Association, put in appearance before the trial Court and was subject to trial. The sample was below ‘IS specification’ and its result was 4.5%. 3. The accused were summoned to face trial for the aforesaid offences. Only Vimal Bansal, one of the responsible persons of M/s Dinkar Agro Association, put in appearance before the trial Court and was subject to trial. Accused No. 1, the dealer, accused No. 3, manufacturer and its responsible persons as well as other responsible persons of M/s Dinkar Agro Association (petitioners herein) were declared as proclaimed offenders. 4. Vimal Bansal, one of the responsible persons of M/s Dinkar Agro Association pleaded not guilty to the charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 29 of the Act and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution examined Teja Singh Sandhu PW1, Harbans Singh PW2 and Gurdeep Singh PW3. The accused was confronted with the incriminating material against him during his examination under Section 313 of the Code and he denied his culpability with usual plea of false implication. 6. The learned trial Court after having heard counsel for the complainant as well as counsel representing Vimal Bansal held in favour of M/s Dinkar Agro Association and sequelly Vimal Bansal was acquitted of the offence charged against him. 7. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already put in appearance before the trial Court and were released on bail, therefore, any disability against them for being declared as proclaimed offenders by the trial court no longer subsists. It is argued with vehemence that as the same evidence would be led in case the petitioners are put to trial, no useful purpose would be served by prosecution of the petitioners in view of the findings of the trial Court that M/s Dinkar Agro Association, accused No. 2 therein is not the distributor and thus, Vimal Bansal is not liable for the offence. It is further argued that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be sheer wastage of precious time of the Court and harassment to the petitioners when otherwise there is no prospect of the proceedings resulting in conviction of the petitioners. 8. Counsel for the respondent-State has nothing to submit to counter the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners in view of the findings recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar in regard to culpability of M/s Dinkar Agro Association and Vimal Bansal. 8. Counsel for the respondent-State has nothing to submit to counter the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners in view of the findings recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar in regard to culpability of M/s Dinkar Agro Association and Vimal Bansal. However, it has been conceded that the judgment passed by the learned trial court has attained finality as no appeal has been preferred by the State of Punjab against decision dated 29.11.2007. 9. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records, particularly the judgment passed by the trial court (Annexure P-11). 10. The contentions raised by counsel for the petitioners get substantiated in view of the observations made by the learned trial Court. A relevant extract from the judgment is quoted thus:- “A perusal of complaint reveals that only allegation against accused No. 2 (M/s Dinkar Agro Association) was that the dealer firm (accused No. 1) purchased insecticides vide bill No. 000030 dated 22.10.1994 from M/s Dinkar Agro Association, Muktsar. It is also not alleged in the complaint that accused No. 2 was the distributor of the purchased insecticides. The evidence produced on record by the complainant does not prove that accuse No. 2 is the distributor. The complainant has placed on record bill dated 22.10.1994 to prove that accused No. 1 purchased insecticides from accused No. 2. The complainant has also produced on record bill dated 24.9.1994 to prove that accused No. 2 M/s Dinkar Agro Association purchased insecticides from M/s Janta Agro Service Centre, Bathinda. Both these bills are not proved formally but these documents are produced on record by the complainant and the complainant does not challenge its authenticity. Bill dated 24.9.1994 proves that M/s Dinkar Agro Association purchased insecticides from M/s Janta Agro Service Centre, Bathinda (distributor). Therefore, these documents produced by the complainant also prove that M/s Dinkar Agro Associati on was not the distributor. The complainant has also produced on record licence of accused No. 2. It also proves that accused No. 2 was the dealer of M/s Vijay Laxmi Insecticides and Pesticides Private Limited as well as Khatau Janker Limited. Therefore, this licence also does not prove that accused No. 2 was the distributor. As the prosecution has failed to prove that accused No. 2 was the distributor, in these circumstances, at the most, accused No. 2 also can be treated as a dealer. Therefore, this licence also does not prove that accused No. 2 was the distributor. As the prosecution has failed to prove that accused No. 2 was the distributor, in these circumstances, at the most, accused No. 2 also can be treated as a dealer. The prosecution has not alleged that the seals were tampered with or not kept intact. It was also not the plea of the complainant that insecticides were not stored properly and tampered by accused No. 2 or No. 1. Moreover, there is positive evidence that the seals were intact and properly fastened. The reports of insecticides laboratory are Exs. PH and PJ. The sample was taken in a sealed container. Both these reports prove that the container was bearing seals intact and properly fastened.” 11. In the concluding lines of para 23 of the judgment, it is held that admittedly, accused has not produced any evidence to prove the factors in compliance with the provisions of Section 30(3) of the Act, but from the evidence produced by the prosecution, it stands proved that accused No. 2 has purchased the insecticides from M/s Eagle Chemicals Private Limited, which is admittedly an authorized manufacturer. In the end, the Court summed up that the complainant has failed to prove its case free from doubt against the accused. As such, the Court has no option except to acquit the accused. 12. Counsel for the State is fair enough to concede that the same evidence is to be led against the petitioners who have been arrayed as accused being other responsible persons of M/s Dinkar Agro Association besides Vimal Bansal, already tried in the court and acquitted of the offence. As has been noticed earlier, the judgment passed by the trial court has attained finality for want of challenge by the State of Punjab. Keeping in view the earlier decision of the trial court, it is evident that there is no prospect of the petitioners being convicted of the offence in case, subject to rigmarole of criminal proceedings. In these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an empty formality at the cost of wastage of precious time of the Court and the prosecuting agency besides harassment to the petitioners. It is expedient in the interest of justice that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are put to an end. 13. In these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an empty formality at the cost of wastage of precious time of the Court and the prosecuting agency besides harassment to the petitioners. It is expedient in the interest of justice that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are put to an end. 13. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is allowed, Criminal Complaint No. 193-2 dated 19.12.1997 for offence under Sections 3(K)(1), 17, 18, 29, 33 of the Act read with Rule 10, 27(5) of the Rules (Annexure P-10) and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners.