ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [APHC010080272024] has been filed by the Petitioner/A.2, aggrieved by issuance of the summons dated 09.01.2024 to him in CC No.903 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool.

2. The brief facts of the case are that:

i) Petitioner is A.2 and Respondent No.2 is the de facto Complainant in the above case. Prior to date of filing of the complaint, on 22.07.2020 de facto complainant/Respondent No.2 along with other officials inspected the shop of L.Ws.4 and 5/Chitrala Vinod Kumar and Maka Lakshmaiah Setti and Simat pesticides, collected samples for quality analysis. On 28.08.2020 they received the analytical results of the Simate (thorte-19 gms according to which, 0% active

1. For short ‘the Code’

ingredient in the pesticide is found. On 29.08.2020, de facto Complainant visited the shops and seized the available stock of Simate under the cover of panchanama in the presence of L.Ws.6 and 7/Panchayathdars. iii) Basing on the Panchanama, Police registered a case in Crime No.407 of 2020 of Nandikotkur Urban Police Station against A.1 and A.2 for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 IPC and Section 29(3) of the Insecticide Act, 1968². The Police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet, which is numbered as numbered as CC No.903 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur, and issued summons. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been

filed.

3. Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents/State. Perused the material on record.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that basing on the report of the Agricultural Officer/R.2 herein, initially, the Police registered a case in a crime in FIR No.407 of 2020 for the offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 29(3) of the Act. Learned counsel would submit that during pendency of the investigation, the Petitioner/A.2 filed Crl.P.No.3951 of 2020 seeking anticipatory bail wherein, this Court vide Order dated 05.10.2020 observed that the offence under Section 420 IPC does not attract to the facts of the case. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

2. For short ‘the Act’

“12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of accordingly holding that no offence under Section 420 of IPC is made out against the petitioner from the facts of the case. As the only offence that is made out against the petitioner as per the facts of the prosecution case is under Section 29(3) of the Insecticides Act, which is bailable in nature, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and the guidelines prescribed by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, [3.(2014) 8 SCC 273]. The petitioner is also at liberty to pursue his remedy before the appropriate forum as the only offence made out against him, as per facts of the case, is bailable in nature.”

5. Learned counsel would further submit that after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 29(3) of the Act and issued summons on 19.01.2024. Learned counsel would submit that as per Rule-27 of the Insecticide Rules, 1971, allegations if any, in the complaint is to be investigated by the Insecticides Inspector only but not the Police. Hence, learned counsel submits that continuing the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner/A.2 is mere abuse of process of law as the Police are not competent to register the case, investigate and file charge sheet since the offence is a non-cognizable offence.

6. To buttress the contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur in Amrutlal Sanghani and others V.State of Madhya Pradesh and oth