Delhi District Court
M/S Thakar Chemicals Ltd vs Union Of India on 24 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH KHURANA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04: WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CNR No.DLWT01-010827-2022
Crl. Rev. No. 395/2022
1. M/S THAKAR CHEMICALS LTD.
201, SHIVLOK HOUSE II, KARAMPURA,
COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI-110015
2. SH. INDER SUREKA,
DIRECTOR (FROM YEAR 2011 to 2015)
M/S THAKAR CHEMICALS LTD.
201, SHIVLOK HOUSE II, KARAMPURA,
COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI-110015
........ REVISIONISTS
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH
SH. GYANESHWER BANCHHOR
INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF PLANT PROTECTION,
QUARANTINE & STORAGE,
MINITRY OF AGRICULTURE & FARMERS
WELFARE (DAC & FW)
N.H.4. FARIDABAD-121001
....... RESPONDENT
Date of Institution of case : 11.11.2022
Date of decision : 24.04.2023
Crl. Rev. No. 395/2022 M/s Thakar Chemical Ltd & Anr Vs. Union of India Page no. 1 of 6
Decision : Dismissed
JUDGMENT
1. This is the revision petition u/s 397 Cr.PC against the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by Ld MM-04, West, Tis Hazari Court vide which Ld MM took cognizance and summoned the accused persons/revisionists herein and order dated 05.04.2022 passed by Ld MM-04, West, THC vide which Ld MM-04 issued fresh summons to the accused persons/revisionists herein in complaint case bearing CC No. 14283/2018 titled as Union of India Vs. M/s Thakar Chemical Ltd.
2. I have heard arguments on the present revision petition and perused the record.
3. Brief facts of the present petition are that the revisionists have been ordered to be summoned by Ld Trial Court vide impugned order for violation of section 17 and 18 of Insecticides Act, 1968 for illegal import of Carbendazim Tech. (a pesticide). As per the complaint filed by the respondent Union of India through Directorate of Plant Protection, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, the Insecticides Act, 1968 provides for a Registration Committee to grant registration for import and manufacture of insecticides and no insecticide can be imported or manufactured without registration thereof by the Registration Committee and an application for grant of licence can be made after issuance of certificate of registration. The pesticide imported by the revisionist company is stated to be a fungicide included in the Crl. Rev. No. 395/2022 M/s Thakar Chemical Ltd & Anr Vs. Union of India Page no. 2 of 6 schedule of Insecticides Act 1968 and being highly toxic substance the same is regulated under the Insecticides Act 1968.
4. A complaint dated 07.04.2016 is stated to have been received in the Directorate of Plant Protection from Crop Care Federation of India wherein it was alleged that some Indian firms have been importing Carbendazim Tech from a source which has not been approved by Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee. The complaint was investigated and data related to the Carbendazim Tech was sought from Director General of Systems and Data Managements, Customs, New Delhi and on scrutiny of said data it was observed that the firm M/s Thakar Chemicals Ltd has imported 32 numbers of consignments from unapproved sources from the year 2012 to 2016. Further, the said import of Carbendazim Tech from unapproved sources was further confirmed by Commissioner, Central Excise Audit, New Delhi vide order dated 30.05.2017. On the basis of it, a show cause notice dated 16.08.2016 was issued by the complainant (respondent herein) to the revisionists for submitting the documents relating to import of Carbendazim Tech and the revisionists vide letter dated 16.09.2016 submitted their reply and thereafter, the complaint was filed before Ld Trial Court for violation of section 17 and 18 of Insecticides Act, 1968.
5. The present revision petition has been filed by the revisionists on the ground that Ld Trial Court does have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the alleged Crl. Rev. No. 395/2022 M/s Thakar Chemical Ltd & Anr Vs. Union of India Page no. 3 of 6 offences against the revisionists as no cause of action has arisen in Delhi. Ld counsel for the revisionists argued that the consignment of Carbendazim Tech was imported by the revisionist company, however, the consignment landed at the sea port at Nhava Sheva Sea Port, Raigarh, Maharashtra, therefore, the Trial Court which is having jurisdiction at Delhi could not have entertained or tried the complaint filed by the respondent Union of India. Ld counsel for the revisionists argued that the concerned Court at Maharashtra has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the alleged offences, if any, against the revisionists.
6. Per contra, Ld counsel for the respondent Union of India argued that the revisionist company is having its corporate office at Karampura, New Delhi and the pesticide was imported by the said company and merely the fact that consignment was received at Sea Port, Raigarh, Maharashtra does not bar the jurisdiction of Trial Court at Delhi as the order was placed by the revisionist company having registered/corporate office at Delhi and hence, cause of action has arisen in Delhi.
7. I have heard the arguments made by respective counsels and perused the record of the case file. Vide impugned order the revisionists have been summoned upon the complaint filed by the respondent Union of India for commission of offence u/s 17(1)(c)(d)& 18(C) r/w appended rules of 1971. The complaint before Ld Trial Court was filed by Authorized Representative of the respondent being a public servant and vide impugned order Ld Trial Court took cognizance of the offences Crl. Rev. No. 395/2022 M/s Thakar Chemical Ltd & Anr Vs. Union of India Page no. 4 of 6 against the revisionists.
8. Admittedly, the revisionist company is having its corporate office at Karampura, New Delhi and it cannot be presumed at the stage of cognizance that the order of the pesticide was not placed at Delhi by the revisionist company having office at Delhi.
9. Section 177 Cr.PC provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
10.Section 178 Cr.PC provides that (a) when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any such local areas.
11.In the case of Abrahma Ajith Vs. Inspector of Police (2004) 8 SCC 100 held that "12. The crucial question is whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court concerned. In terms of Section 177 of the Code, it is the place where the offence was committed. In essence it is the cause of action for initiation of the proceedings against the accused.
14. It is settled law that cause of action consists of a bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court oflaw. In other words, it is bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to Crl. Rev. No. 395/2022 M/s Thakar Chemical Ltd & Anr Vs. Union of India Page no. 5 of 6 them, gives the allegedly affected party a right to claim relief against the opponent. It must include some act done by the latter since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise".
12.In view of the aforeasid facts and circumstances, since the order of pesticide was placed by the revisionist company which is having office at Delhi, Ld Trial Court cannot be said to be bereft of jurisdiction as argued by Ld counsel for the revisionists.
13. Hence, there is no merit in the revision petition and consequently, the impugned orders dated 29.08.2019 and 05.04.2022 passed by Ld Trial Court are hereby upheld.
14.Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the revisionists herein stands dismissed and disposed of.
15. File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room after completing necessary formalities.
16. Copy of order be sent to Ld Trial Court.
Digitally signedANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT MANISH by MANISH KHURANA th ON THIS 24 DAY OF APRIL 2023 KHURANA Date:
2023.04.24 16:05:38 +0530 (Manish Khurana) Additional Sessions Judge-04 West/Tis Hazari Courts Delhi/24.04.2023 Crl. Rev. No. 395/2022 M/s Thakar Chemical Ltd & Anr Vs. Union of India Page no. 6 of 6