SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 592

2010 (5) Supreme 695
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma, JJ.
Rajesh Rangarajan — Appellant
versus
M/s. Crop care fed. of India & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1305 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.3700 of 2008)
Decided on : 20-7-2010

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120(B), 34, 500, 501 & 502 – The report only meant to focus the harmful effects of exposure to pesticides – Not meant to harm, hurt or defame anybody – Complaint u/ss 120(B), 34, 500, 501 & 502 not maintainable. (Para 4)

       Facts of the case:

       This appeal is directed against a report prepared in the wake of farmers’ death due to exposure to pesticides in Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh.

       Finding of the Court:

       The report is not against any individual or company.

       Result : Complaint quashed and consequently the appeal dismissed.

       

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.Leave granted.

3.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No.,4155 of 2006. Mr.Raj Panjwani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to Annexure P-1, which is the Report of the Fact Finding Committee which deals with Farmers Death Due to Exposure to Pesticides in Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh.

4.We have carefully perused the Report. The relevant page of the report, which is at Page 40 of the paper book, clearly indicate that the Fact Finding Committee was not aimed at doing health study or in-depth scientific investigation, but to do an indicative study which would lead to a larger health study. The general tenor of the report indicates that the report meant to focus the harmful effects of exposure to pesticides. It is quite evident from the report that it was not meant to harm, hurt or defame any individual or the manufacturing company. Mr.Panjwani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant also fairly submitted that the report was not intended to harm or defame any individual or manufacturers of pesticides. In our considered opinion, the complaint filed under Sections 120(B), 34, 500, 501 & 502 of the Indian Penal Code lack basic ingredients. According to our view, no useful purpose would be served in permitting the trial Court to proceed with the complaint which lacks the basic ingredients of aforementioned Sections. Consequently, we quash the complaint.

5.Since the complaint itself has been quashed, therefore, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside.

***********

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top