JUDGMENT : Hemant M. Prachchhak, J. 1. By way of present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside F.I.R. bearing No. II. 01 of 2018 registered with Dahej Marine Police Station, Dist. Bharuch for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Poisons Act, 1919 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and to quash all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioners. 2. At the outset, Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.3 i.e. Niren Prabhulal Jhaveri has passed away on 23.5.2021. Learned advocate for the petitioners has produced on record the death certificate of said petitioner No.3 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai R South Ward and has requested that present petition may be abated qua petitioner No.3. 3. In view above, present petition stands disposed of as abated qua petitioner No.3. 4. Therefore, present petition is taken up for hearing only qua petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4. 5. In present petition, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that:- “9(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned First Information Report bearing No. II 01/2018 filed by the Mamlatdar, Vaghare, Bharuch, i.e. Respondent No. 2 registered on 20.02.2018 before the Dahej Marine Police Station, Bharuch, for the offences punishable under Section 6 of the Poisons Act, 1919; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 02.02.2017 sent to the Petitioners by the Ld. Collector and the District Magistrate, Bharuch; (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay further proceedings in respect of the impugned First Information Report bearing No. II 01/2018 filed by the Mamlatdar, Vaghare, Bharuch, i.e. Respondent No. 2 registered on 20.02.2018 before the Dahej Marine Police Station, Bharuch, for the offences punishable under Section 6 of the Poisons Act, 1919; (D) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay further proceedings in respect of the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 02.02.2017 sent to the petitioners by the Ld. Collector and the District Magistrate, Bharuch. Collector and the District Magistrate, Bharuch. (E) An ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer (C) and (D) above may kindly be granted; (F) Such other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and proper may kindly be granted in the interest of justice.” 6. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner No.1 is engaged in the business of manufacturing of various chemicals. For production of the said chemicals the petitioner No. 1 utilized methanol and phenol. The petitioner no. 1 possessed requisite license for purchase, possession and use of Methyl Alcohol being Form M.A.-1, under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The petitioner No. 1 has also granted an N.O.C. to store the methanol at his premises by learned District Magistrate of Bharuch. 6.1 On 31.01.2017, a fire took place at the manufacturing plant of the petitioner No.1. The Petitioner No.1 has immediately taken all necessary steps so as to control the fire from spreading. The Petitioner No.1's on-site team initiated steps to extinguish the fire and alerted the Safety Team for help. Instructions were also dispatched to evacuate the area within the first ten minutes of the fire breaking out. The D.M.C, D.P.M.C. and the Fire Department were contacted and simultaneously, all agencies including the neighbouring companies were working under the directions of the collectively to control the fire outbreak. The Petitioner No.1 also immediately undertook steps to isolate the hazardous storage tanks, thereby ensuring that the fire outbreak did not result in a major health, safety and environment hazard. It is pertinent to note that due to such prompt action of the Petitioner No. 1, there was no injury or casualty in spite of the severity of the incident. Furthermore, in the interest of safety and as per the direction of the Director - Industrial Safety and Health, the Petitioner Company appointed M/s Naik & Associates, to take charge of the plant for safe evacuation of the materials and handling of chemicals in a zero-risk manner. It is stated that the Petitioner No.1 had a stock of approximately 15 MT of Phenol, which was completely destroyed during the fire. It is stated that the Petitioner No.1 had a stock of approximately 15 MT of Phenol, which was completely destroyed during the fire. 6.2 On 02.02.2017, the Collector and District Magistrate issued an Order and Show Cause Notice to the Petitioner No.1, stating, inter alia, that the Petitioner No.1 purportedly did not possess the requisite licences from the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) and that the abovementioned incident of fire was a result of such poor storage of potentially volatile chemicals. The Collector concluded that the Petitioner No.1 contravened the provisions of the Poisons Act, 1919 by storing certain chemicals, which are included in the schedule of the Poison Act, 1919. In respondent thereto the Petitioners have filed their reply vide a letter dated 07.02.2017 by producing all the licenses held by the Petitioners. 6.3 In light of the Collector's direction, the Petitioner No.1 proceeded to clear potentially hazardous chemicals from its manufacturing plant. In pursuance of the aforesaid, the Petitioner No. 1 made an application to the Superintendent of the Prohibition Department requesting for a one-time permission for sale, thereby disposal, of methanol to a company being 'Akhilesh Enterprises'. The Application was accepted by the Director of the Prohibition and Excise Department, Bharuch. It is pertinent to note that Akhilesh Enterprises possessed requisite licenses and made a formal Application to purchase Methanol from the Petitioner No.1. Thereafter, on 11.4.2017 the petitioner No.1 sought permission from Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Office of the Collector, Bharuch, to restart the manufacturing plant. However, petitioner No.1 received a reply that the request of the petitioner was not in its purview. Thereafter, on 20.2.2018, the Mamlatdar filed the impugned F.I.R. being No. II/01/2018 alleging that Methanol and phenol were illegally stored at the petitioners’ premises. 7. Therefore, the petitioners have filed present petition to quash the impugned F.I.R. being No. II/01/2018 filed before the Dahej Marine Police Station, Dist. Bharuch for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Act. 8. Heard Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned Counsel appearing for Nanavati Associates for the petitioners and Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned APP for the respondent. Perused the impugned F.I.R. and the materials placed on record of the petition along with the relevant documents and reports. 9. Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned FIR filed under Section 6 of the Act is not maintainable against the petitioners. Dhawan Jayswal, learned APP for the respondent. Perused the impugned F.I.R. and the materials placed on record of the petition along with the relevant documents and reports. 9. Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned FIR filed under Section 6 of the Act is not maintainable against the petitioners. He has further submitted that Section 6 of the Act provides that penalties are to be levied in breach of either the rules made under Section 2 of the Act, or import of poison without a license and breach of any conditions of a license granted for an importation of any poison. 9.1 Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioners have imported either methanol or phenol which attracts the provisions under Section 6(1)(b) and (c) of the Act. Hence, the impugned FIR is arbitrary, illegal and totally without application of mind and hence, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Dhavan Jayswal, learned APP for the respondent State of Gujarat has submitted that the impugned FIR is filed for serious offence under Section 6 of the Act, on the ground that petitioners are having possession of certain chemicals without license under the Act and therefore, the petitioners attract the penal provisions stipulated by Section 6 of the Act. Learned APP has further submitted that the petitioners have without any license stored the chemical like methanol and phenol, which are included in the schedule of the Act. 10.1 Mr. Jayswal, learned APP has further submitted that in view of the seriousness of the offence, the impugned FIR, which is filed against the present petitioners may not be quashed and present petition may be dismissed. 11. I have gone through the relevant material. It appears that present petition came up for hearing before the co-ordinate bench of this Court on 14.8.2018 and the co-ordinate bench of this Court, after hearing learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, has passed following order on 14.8.2018:- “Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the F.I.R. is based on the allegation that the company was storing certain chemicals and explosives without holding any license, thereby committing offence under Section 6 of the Poisons Act 1919. Learned advocate for the applicants invited attention of this Court to the show cause notice issued by the Collector communicated to the company, wherein license numbers, date of expiry and the product for which the license was issued for storage is specifically mentioned. It appears that the products mentioned in the F.I.R. are covered under the license. NOTICE returnable on 20th September, 2018. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.H.K.Patel waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent – State. Direct Service is permitted.” 12. In response thereto Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned APP is appearing for the respondent State of Gujarat. 13. It appears from the record that the aforesaid F.I.R. lodged before Dahej Marine Police Station against present petitioners for the violation of provision of Section 6 of the Poison Act. In the said F.I.R. it was mentioned that the petitioners are not having prescribed licence for a chemical which is mentioned in the list and therefore, they have committed offence under Section 6 of the Poison Act. On the basis of that the Dahej Marine Police has investigated the offence and the petitioners were called upon and in turn, the petitioners remained present before the Investigating Officer and supplied all the relevant documentary evidence, which is part of the petition. While going through the relevant documents, which are appended to the petition, it seems that the petitioners are having all the requisite licence from the competent authority to run the company and they are carried on business since decades, prior to the date of incident and during that period, no single incident was reported in the company premises. The petitioners have produced list of license which was in existence, at the time of date of incident and it was also produced before the competent authority, at the time of inquiry. It seems that the averments made in the FIR is without application of mind. Prior to the date of registration of offence, the petitioners have produced all the documentary evidence before the competent authority, who have granted license for different chemicals along with the date of issuance and the date of expiry. It seems that the averments made in the FIR is without application of mind. Prior to the date of registration of offence, the petitioners have produced all the documentary evidence before the competent authority, who have granted license for different chemicals along with the date of issuance and the date of expiry. From bare perusal of the said documents, the fact reveals that the company is doing business since more that 20 years i.e. prior to the date of incident and the petitioners are having prescribed license for the use of chemica,l which is kept in the petitioners’ company and petitioners have also supplied all the documentary evidence to the Investigating Officer during course of the investigation. Even, at the first point of time, the Investigating Officer has called the FSL personal to the place of incident and also visited the place of incident and prepared the investigation report. 14. At this juncture, it is also relevant to take into account Sections 2, 6 and 8 of the Poison Act, which read as under:- “2. Power of the State Government to regulate possession for sale and sale of any poison. Power of the State Government to regulate possession for sale and sale of any poison. (1) 4*** The State Government may by rule regulate within the whole or any part of the territories under its administration the possession for sale and the sale, whether wholesale or retail, of any specified poison. Power of the State Government to regulate possession for sale and sale of any poison. (1) 4*** The State Government may by rule regulate within the whole or any part of the territories under its administration the possession for sale and the sale, whether wholesale or retail, of any specified poison. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for- (a) the grant of licences to possess any specified poison for sale, wholesale or retail, and fixing of the fee (if any) to be charged for such licences; (b) the classes of persons to whom alone such licences may be granted; (c) the classes of persons to whom alone any such poison may be sold; (d) the maximum quantity of any such poison which may be sold to any one person; (e) the maintenance by vendors of any such poison of registers of sales, the particulars to be entered in such registers, and the inspection of the same; (f) the safe custody of such poisons and the labelling of the vessels, packages or coverings in which any such poison is sold or possessed for sale; and (g) the inspection and examination of any such poison when possessed for sale by any such vendor. 6.Penalty for unlawful importation, etc. Penalty for unlawful importation, etc. (1) Whoever-- (a) commits a breach of any rule made under section 2, or (b) imports 5* without a licence 2* [into 1*[India] across a customs frontier 3* defined by the Central Government] any poison the importation of which is for the time being restricted under section 3, or (c) breaks any condition of a licence for the importation of any poison granted to him under section 3, shall be punishable,-- (i) on a first conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both, and (2) Any poison in respect of which an offence has been committed under this section, together with the vessels, packages or coverings in which the same is found, shall be liable to confiscation. 8. Rules. (1) In addition to any other power to make rules hereinbefore conferred 1*** the State Government may make rules generally to carry out the purposes and objects of this Act 2*[except section 3]. 8. Rules. (1) In addition to any other power to make rules hereinbefore conferred 1*** the State Government may make rules generally to carry out the purposes and objects of this Act 2*[except section 3]. (2) Every power to make rules conferred by this Act shall be subject to the condition of the rules being made after previous publication. (3) All rules made by the Central Government or by the State Government under this Act shall be published in the 3*[Official Gazette] and on such publication shall have effect as if enacted in this Act. 4*[(4) Every rule made by the Central Government under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule. (5) Every rule made by the State Government under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before the State Legislature.]” 15. Today, Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned APP has produced on record the report filed by the concerned Police Inspector of Dahej Marine Police Station along with the order passed by the learned District Magistrate comprising the papers of ‘Janva Jog’ and other papers, which are taken on record. From the said papers, the fact reveals that the incident occurred due to some chemical expursion and there was no iota of evidence of any negligence on part of present petitioners. 16. From the bare reading of the report, the statement of the operator, who has seen the place of fire first, study of M.S.D.S. of chemicals etc. From the said papers, the fact reveals that the incident occurred due to some chemical expursion and there was no iota of evidence of any negligence on part of present petitioners. 16. From the bare reading of the report, the statement of the operator, who has seen the place of fire first, study of M.S.D.S. of chemicals etc. it appears that when some chemicals fallen into plastic drums from certain height, at quadrature speed, a static charge is generated, especially the design to eliminate the static charge has failed and therefore, during the preliminary investigation, it was found that the fire started. 16.1 From the above, it is made clear that the fire has taken place due to failure of system of eliminating static charge. 17. In view of the report of the FSL officer, who have visited the place of incident and prepared the report and while considering all these facts, I am of the opinion that the initiation of the present criminal prosecution against present petitioners is erroneous, as the petitioners are doing the business since long having all the prescribed licence, as required for storage and possession and also for sale and prior to the date of incident and after the incident there was no any other offence registered against present petitioners and therefore, prima facie I am of the opinion that present petition deserves consideration. 18. So far as averments made in present petition, except the oral adherence and the arguments advanced by the learned APP, there is no much resistance on the part of the respondent and the respondent has also not filed any affidavit to object present petition. 19. After considering all these fact and the relevant documents which are part of present petition and also after perusal of the investigation papers produced by the Investigating Officer, who is personally remained present today, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. 20. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the F.I.R. bearing No. II. 01 of 2018 registered with Dahej Marine Police Station, Dist. Bharuch is hereby quashed and set aside and if any proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside. Direct service permitted.