Amrutlal Sanghani vs State of M. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(MP) 79

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul, J.
Amrutlal Sanghani & Others v. State of M.P.& Others
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 17458 of 2021 (Jabalpur); Decided on 1.4.2022

Advocates:
Surendra Singh with Shivam Singh for applicants;
Pramod Thakre, Government Advocate for respondents/State.

Headnote:
(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- quashing of FIR -- scope of judicial review at stage of FIR is very limited -- Court cannot examine correctness of allegations -- allegations accepted at their face value do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out case against accused -- FIR can be interfered with. [Paras 14 & 15
(2) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 -- Ss. 3 r/w S. 7, 2 (A) and Schedule -- quashing of FIR -- FIR for misbranding of insecticide -- “essential commodity” means commodity “specified in the Schedule” -- insecticide not mentioned in Schedule -- FIR cannot sustain judicial scrutiny relating to offence under EC Act. [Para 16
(3) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- Ss. 482, 154, 2 (l) and Schedule I -- Insecticides Act, 1968 -- S. 29 -- quashing of FIR -- for first offence under Insecticides Act, imprisonment is permissible up to period of two years -- Schedule I of CrPC provides that offence punishable with imprisonment for less than three years is non-cognizable -- offence under Insecticides Act is non-cognizable -- FIR can be interfered with if it does not disclose cognizable offence -- FIR set aside. AIR 1992 SC 604 and (1996) 11 SCC 557 followed.
[Paras 17 to 20 & 22
¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482 && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk vfHk[kaMu && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ ds izØe ij U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr vR;f/kd lhfer gS && U;k;ky; vfHkdFkuksa dh lR;rk ugha ij[k ldrk && izR;{k ewY; ij LohÑr vfHkdFkuksa ls izFke n`"V~;k dksbZ vijk/k xfBr ugha gksrk vFkok vfHk;qDr ds fo#) ekeyk fl) ugha gksrk && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 15
¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482 && vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e] 1995 && /kkjk 3 lgifBr /kkjk 7]2 ¼d½ rFkk vuqlwph && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk vfHk[kaMu && dhVuk'kh ij feF;k Nki yxkus ds fy, izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ && ßvko';d oLrqÞ ls ßvuqlwph ls fofufnZ"VÞ oLrq vfHkizsr gS && dhVuk'kh vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr ugha && vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vijk/k ds laca/k esa izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ U;kf;d laoh{kk esa fLFkj ugha jg ldrhA ¼iSjk 16
¼3½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482] 154] 2 ¼B½ rFkk izFke vuqlwph && dhVuk'kh vf/kfu;e] 1968 && /kkjk 29 && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk vfHk[kaMu
&& dhVuk'kh vf/kfu;e ds v/khu izFke vijk/k ds fy, nks o"kZ dh vof/k rd dk dkjkokl vuqKs; && naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh izFke vuqlwph esa micaf/kr fd rhu o"kZ ls de djkokl ls naMuh; vijk/k vlaKs; gS && dhVuk'kh vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vijk/k vlaKs; gS && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa laKs; vijk/k izdV ugha gks rks mldsa gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gS && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vikLrA , vkb vkj 1992 ,l lh 604 rFkk ¼1996½11 ,l lh lh 557 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 17 ls 20 ,oa 22

ORDER

Paul, J. 1. This petition filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) assails the First Information Report (FIR) dated 29 January, 2021 (Annexure-P/4).

2. Briefly stated, the applicants No. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are working as Quality Control In-charge in M/s Sumitomo Chemical India Ltd., Mumbai. The said company has factories at Bhavnagar, Gajodand Vapi in Gujarat and Silvassa in Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli.

3. Petitioner No. 2 is factory Manager looking after the production and administration of Bhavnagar factory. It is averred that he is not the Quality Manager.

4. It is pleaded that M/s Sumitomo Chemical India Ltd. was formerly known as Excel Crop Care Ltd. having its registered office at 184/87, S.V. Road Jogewari West Mumbai and having production Unit at Bhavnagar Gajodand in Gujarat and Silvasa.

5. It is further stated that pursuant to an order passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai bench dated 27th June, 2019. The previous company merged into M/s Sumitomo Chemical India Ltd.

6. The case of the petitioners is that the said company is one of the largest manufacturers of Technical grade Pesticides and formulations in the company. One of the formulations IMIDACLOPRIDE 17.8% is manufactured and sold under the brand name “IMIDACEL” (hereinafter called as ‘product’).

7. That the Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer/Insectionticide Officer obtained a sample of IMIDACLOPRIDE 17.8% SL from a trader of Khargone (M.P.) and sent it to Insectionticide Quality Control Laboratory, Jabalpur for analysis. As per the report of the said laboratory, the sample is declared as ‘misbranded’.

8. A show cause notice dated 24.6.2020 was issued to M/s Excel Crop Care Ltd. Which in turn was send to the petitioners’ company. In turn, petitioners’ company by letter dated 3.7.2020 denied the allegations regarding production of said product in its factory. After certain further correspondence between the said Government officer and the company, the impugned FIR No. 44/2021 was lodged against the petitioner on 29.1.2021.

9. This FIR dated 29.1.2021 was lodged in Mandleshwar Police Station District Khargaon by respondent No.2 for violation of section 3 r/w 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act of 1955) and section 29 of the Insectionticides Act, 1968 (Act of 1968). This FIR is subject matter of challenge in this petition.

10. Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate submits that :

(1) the ‘Product’ was treated to be misbranded. The Essential Commodities Act is not applicable to the product which is an Insectionticide. To bolster this, section 2A(1) of the Act of 1955 is relied upon. Schedule appended to this Act was referred to show that Insectionticide is not one of the items mentioned in the Schedule. Thus, provisions of Act of 1955 are not attractive and, therefore, question of committing any offence under this Act does not arise.

(2) Section 29(1)(f) and sub-sectiontion (2) of Act of 1968 were relied upon. It is further submitted that section 2(l) of Cr.P.C. defines “non cognizable offence”. First schedule of Cr.P.C. which contains “Classification of offences in other Laws” defines the punishment in following words “if punishment with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine”, it is ‘non-cognizable offence’. Thus, the stand of petitioners is that the offence alleged against the present petitioners under the Act of 1968 are non-cognizable offences.

(3) For non-cognizable offence, FIR under section 164 of Cr.P.C. cannot be registered which is clear from the plain language of section 154 and the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604.

11. Per contra, Shri Pramod Thakre, learned Government Advocate for the State, placed reliance on section 155(4) of the Cr.P.C. and sectiontion 2(d) of Cr.P.C. He relied upon Keshav Lal Thakur v. State of Bihar [(1996) 11 SCC 557].

12. Parties confined their arguments to the extent indicate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document