IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. SUJATHA, J.
T. Kanna Rao and Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of A.P. and Others - Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 3449 of 2019
Decided On : 30-07-2024
Quashing - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Sections 420, 34; Insecticides Act Sections 9, 13 - The court interpreted the lack of fraudulent intent and the existence of alternative remedies under the Insecticides Act, leading to the quashing of the charge sheet against the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of manufacturing bio-products containing chemical insecticide residues, leading to a complaint under IPC Section 420. The petitioners argued that there was no fraudulent intent and that the allegations did not constitute a criminal offense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations did not demonstrate any intention to cheat, which is essential for IPC Section 420. It noted that the appropriate remedy lay under the Insecticides Act, not through criminal proceedings.
Issues: Whether the charge sheet under IPC Section 420 against the petitioners should be quashed due to lack of evidence for fraudulent intent and the existence of alternative remedies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without evidence of fraudulent intent or inducement to deliver property, the charge under IPC Section 420 could not stand, and the initiation of criminal proceedings was an abuse of process.
Result: The charge sheet in C.C.No.143 of 2018 is quashed.
ORDER :
V. Sujatha, J.
The Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash C.C.No.143/2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur filed against the petitioners/accused for the offences under Section 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, corresponding to Cr.No.293 of 2016 of Lalapet P.S., Guntur Urban.
2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The 2nd respondent herein is the complainant. On 04.11.2016, the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.A/28/2014 has submitted a complaint to the Station House Officer, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur, stating that the Gemini Crop Sciences (petitioner No.1 is the manufacturer) has requested the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture for drawal of bio product samples manufactured by the firm duly paying requisite fee of Rs.5,000/- per sample. In pursuance of the same, the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture has issued instructions on 26.11.2015 to draw samples of bio products for analysis. Accordingly, three samples each from seven bio products were drawn on 20.01.2016 from the premises of Gemini Agri Sciences shop situated at Etkuru road, Guntur and were sent to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Pesticides Testing Laboratory and Coding Centre, through professional courier services on 21.01.2016. Subsequently, the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Pesticides Testing Laboratory and Coding Centre has communicated the analysis report wherein it was revealed that chemical insecticide residues were found in six of the seven samples of the bio products that were taken.
3. On receipt of the said analytical report, the 2nd respondent herein has served the same to the petitioners herein on 20.05.2016. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 24.09.2016 was issued by the Director of Agriculture to the petitioners herein, seeking their explanation as to why action should not be initiated against them for violating the provisions under Sections 9 and 13 of Insecticides Act, 1968.As such, the respondent No.2 has approached the Lalapet Police station, requesting to file a complaint against the petitioners herein under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Pursuant to the complaint/report filed by the 2nd respondent herein, the Lalapet Police have registered a case in Cr.No.293/2016 under Section 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and further proceeded for investigation. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.143 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments has submitted that the show cause notice dated 24.09.2016 would itself show that an explanation was sought from the petitioners as to why action should not be initiated against them for violating Section 9 and 13 of Insecticides Act, 1968, but there is no allegation of any dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the alleged offence to make wrongful gain and as such, the charge under Section 420 of I.P.C., will have no legs to stand. He further submitted that when there is no law prohibiting the manufacturer from manufacturing bio products with any fixed percentage of insecticides, a charge sheet under Section 420 I.P.C., without there being any ingredient of the offence alleged against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. Even otherwise, if the allegations made against the petitioners in the charge sheet are proved, they may make out violation of provisions under the Insecticides Act for which penalty shall be imposed under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, but, no offence under I.P.C., can be made out. As such, the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.143/2018 and the corresponding F.I.R., in Cr.No.293 of 2016 of Lalapet P.S., Guntur are liable to be quashed.
6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that as the analytical report dated 16.05.2016 shows the presence of residues of chemical insecticides in the bio products manufactured and marketed by the petition
Vesa Holdings Private Limited & Another Vs. State of Kerala & Others
The absence of fraudulent intent and the availability of alternative remedies under the Insecticides Act preclude criminal liability under IPC Section 420.
Delay in prosecution unjustly denies manufacturers the right to evidence, leading to quashing of complaints against directors lacking direct involvement in misbranding offenses.
The court ruled that the limitation period for filing a complaint under the Insecticides Act begins from the date the Government Analyst's report is received, not from the sample collection date.
The failure to issue a notice under Section 24(2) of the Insecticides Act violated the applicants' rights to have the sample tested, leading to the quashing of the complaint.
The court held that mere possession of banned insecticide without evidence of intent to sell does not constitute an offence under the Insecticides Act, reaffirming strict adherence to statutory proce....
The manufacturers of insecticides have a right to retest the insecticides by the CIL under Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, and if they are deprived of this right, the proceedings against....
Compliance with statutory provisions under the Insecticides Act is crucial for challenging complaints, and failure to request timely re-analysis of samples undermines defenses against allegations of ....
Distributors and dealers cannot be held liable for misbranding if the insecticide was received and sold in its original sealed condition.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.