Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M/S Bhaskara Crop Care vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 October, 2020

Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.3951 OF 2020

ORDER:

-

This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest.

2. The petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No.407 of 2020 of Nandikotkur Police Station, Kurnool District.

3. The offences registered against him are under Section 420 of IPC and Section 29(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968.

4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 22.08.2020 the Vigilance and Enforcement Officials, Kurnool, inspected two pesticides shops viz., Lakshmi Venkateswara Fertilizers and Pesticides and Mallikarjuna Agencies, K.G. Road, Nandikotkur. They found Simet (Phorte) pesticide during the inspection and they have drawn samples for quality analysis. The Analyst report was received on 28.08.2020 stating that zero per cent active ingredient is found in the pesticide. On the basis of the said report, the Vigilance and Enforcement Officials again inspected the said two shops and seized the available stock of Simet (Phorte 10 g.) as they found violation of Sections 3(k), 17 and 18 of the Insecticides Act under the cover of panchanama. Thereafter, they have registered the case for the offences under Section 420 of IPC and Section 29(3) of the Insecticides Act.

2 CMR, J.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the facts of the case do not at all attract the offence under Section 420 of IPC. There is no allegation that the petitioner has sold any such substandard quality of pesticides to any farmer or to any individual and thereby cheated them and no person who is aggrieved by any such sales lodged any report stating that they have been cheated by the petitioner. As regards Section 29(3) of the Insecticides Act he would submit that the offence is bailable offence. Therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State opposed the Criminal Petition. He would submit that the analyst report clearly reveals that the seized stock is of substandard which is in violation of Sections 3(k), 17 and 18 of the Insecticides Act and as such a clear offence under Section 29(3) of the Insecticides Act was made out. So, he prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.

8. Perused the record.

9. As regards the offence under Section 420 of IPC is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts of the case do not attract any offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. It is not at all the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has sold any such 3 CMR, J.

substandard quality of pesticides to any farmer or to any individual and thereby cheated them. No such farmer or any other person, being aggrieved by any such act committed by the accused, lodged report with the police that they have been cheated. Therefore, prima facie, no case is made out under Section 420 of IPC against the petitioner.

10. As regards the offence under Section 29(3) of the Insecticides Act is concerned, since the offence is punishable with one year imprisonment for the first offence and two years imprisonment and Rs.10,000/- fine for the second offence, as per Table-II of Cr.P.C., the offence is bailable in nature. Since application of Section 420 of IPC to the facts of the case is ruled out, the only offence that is made out from the facts of the case is under Section 29(3) of the Insecticides Act, which is found to be a bailable offence.

11. As per the language employed in Section 438 Cr.P.C., a petition for grant of anticipatory bail can be entertained only when the accusation made is relating to commission of a non- bailable offence. Since the accusation made against the petitioner is not found to be relating to a non-bailable offence as application of Section 420 of IPC is ruled out and as only offence under Section 29(3) of the Insecticides Act is made out from the facts of the case, which is found to be bailable in nature, this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained. However, as the only offence that is made out against the petitioner is under Section 29(3) of the Insecticides 4 CMR, J.

Act, which is a bailable offence, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedy in the appropriate forum.

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 Bihar1. 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.

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 05-10-2020 cs 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273