Delhi District Court
Manjit Sikand vs . Plant Protection Officer on 30 April, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTH-WEST)-04, ROHINI:DELHI
(Crl. Appeal No. : 05/08 )
&
(Crl. Appeal No. : 09/08 )
CC No : 765/01
U/s : 29 (1) (a) of Insecticide Act
PS : Sultan Puri
Manjit Sikand Vs. Plant Protection Officer
&
M/s. India Seeds House & Anr. Vs. Plant Protection Officer
Manjit Sikand
S/o late Sh. H.S. Sikand
R/o C-301, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi ... Appellant
Vs.
Plant Protection Officer
through Insecticide Inspector,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
2
11th Floor, M.S.O Building,
I.P. Estate, Delhi. ...Respondent
&
1. M/s. India Seed House
A-245, New Subzi Mandi
Azadpur, Delhi.
2. Puroshotaam Dass Saini
Prop. Of M/s. India Seed House
A-245, New Subzi Mandi
Azadpur, Delhi ... Appellant
Vs.
Plant Protection Officer,
through Insecticide Inspector,
11th Floor, M.S.O Building,
I.P. Estate, Delhi. ... Respondent
Date of institution of the appeals-27.02.2008
Date on which, judgment have been reserved-17.04.2010
Date of pronouncement of judgment -30.04.2010
3
JUDGEMENT
By this judgment, I shall dispose of two appeals bearing CA No. 05/08 and CA No. 09/08, one filed on behalf of the appellant/convict Manjit Sikand and another filed on behalf of the appellants/convict M/s. India Seeds House & Puroshtaam Dass Saini against the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2008 and order on point of sentence dated 31.1.2008 passed by the Ld. Trial Court in case titled as 'Plant Protection Officer Vs. M/s India Seed House &Ors.' bearing CC. No. 765/01 u/s 29 (1) of Insecticide Act, whereby the appellants have been convicted u/s 29 of Insecticide Act r/w Rule-27 of Insecticide Rules and have been sentenced to undergo SI for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-each in default SI for three months.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeals are that a complaint u/s 29 (1) of Insecticide Act was filed on behalf of the complainant-Plant Protection Officer (respondent herein) against the accused M/s India Seed House & Ors (appellants herein), wherein it was stated that accused M/s India Seed House was a dealer firm, accused Puroshtam was Prop. of accused M/s India Seed House, accused M/s Hindustan Ciba-Giegy 4 Ltd was manufacturer and accused Manjit Sikand was an employee of accused M/s Hindustan Ciba-Giegy Ltd and was responsible to maintain the quality of items. It has been stated on 26.3.1992, Sh.S.C. Sharma, Insecticide Inspector of Delhi Administration visited the premises of accused situated at A-245, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur for examination of records and there he purchased some insecticide vide cash memo No. 6832 dated 26.3.1992 for a sum of Rs.246/- and after purchase, Form No. XII under rule- 33 was filled in and signed by the complainant and witnesses as well as by accused- M/s. India Seed House and Purshotam and copy of the same was handed over to them. It has been further stated that the aforesaid sample of insecticide was sent to Insecticide Analyst for analysis, who submitted the report in Form IX under rule 24 (3) and as per said report, the sample does not confirm to relevant I.S specifications with reference to active ingredient contents requirements and was therefore 'misbranded' and said report pertained to test of aforesaid sample of insecticide having the name of Phosphamidon 85%, SL Batch No.1288 duly manufactured by M/s Hindustan Ciba-Giegy Ltd and on the basis of the same, a memorandum was delivered on 2.6.1992, but the accused did not submit any reply to the same despite reminders dated 5 26.08.1992, 09.10.1992 and 05.11.1992, which resulted in the filing of the aforesaid complaint before the Ld. Trial Court wherein it has been prayed that the above named accused may be summoned as they have committed offences u/s 29 (1) (a) of Insecticide Act and they be dealt with according to law.
On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the accused persons were summoned by the Ld. Trial Court and thereafter the trial was conducted and vide impugned judgment dated 30.01.2008 and order on point of sentence dated 31.1.2008 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, the accused (appellants herein) have been convicted u/s 29 of Insecticide Act r/w Rule-27 of Insecticide Rules and have been sentenced to undergo SI for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-each in default SI for three months.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment dated 30.01.2008 and order on point of sentence dated 31.1.2008 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, the appellants have filed the present appeals, wherein it has been prayed that the aforesaid impugned judgment and order on point of sentence passed by the Ld. Trial Court may by set aside and the appellants herein may be acquitted.
6
3. Upon filing of the present appeals, notice was issued to the respondent, who entered appearance through Insecticide Inspector and contested the present appeals. TCR was also summoned and the same has been received.
4. I have heard the arguments on the appeals put forward by the Ld. Counsels for the appellants and respondent and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have also carefully perused the TCR.
5. It has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant-Manjit Sikand that the impugned judgment dated 30.1.2008 and order on the point of sentence dated 31.1.2008 passed by the Ld. Trial court is against the law and the facts on record. It is submitted that there was nothing in the complaint or in the evidence adduced by the complainant/respondent to show that there was any act committed by the appellant from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that he was liable for the alleged misbranding of the insecticide in question. It is further submitted that no evidence whatsoever was led by the complainant/respondent that appellant 7 was In-charge or responsible for the conduct of business of M/s Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. company and in the absence of the averments or evidence thereof the requirement of section -33 of the Act were not satisfied and the appellant could not have been convicted by the Ld. Trial Court, especially when in his statement u/s- 313 Cr.PC appellant has clarified that he was only looking after the sale operations of M/s Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd., and had nothing to do with the manufacturing and quality control. It is also submitted that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that even the deposition of CW-1 was totally silent as to the role played by the appellant so as to constitute an offence u/s- 29 of the Act. It is submitted that Ld. Trial Court gravely erred in holding that appellant could not take the plea that he was not responsible for manufacturing of alleged misbranded insecticide and failed to consider that it was the duty of the prosecution/complainant to prove that appellant was In-charge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of incident and respondent/ complainant miserably failed to do so. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that there was no nexus between the appellant and the commission of alleged offence and even the trial was held against 8 accused no.3 M/s Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd., in absentia . It is also submitted that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that only two samples of alleged misbranded insecticide were taken although three samples were required to be taken in accordance of the provisions of the Act and even the copy of the analyst report was not given to the appellant therein to enable him to express his intention of adducing evidence in contravention of the said report. It is submitted that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that no documents were admitted or exhibited during the trial of the case and in the absence of evidence on record, the appellant could not have been convicted.It is also submitted that impugned judgment dated 30.1.2008 and order on the point of sentence dated 31.1.2008 were based upon conjecture and surmises and were not sustainable in law and it has been prayed that the said impugned judgment and order on the point of sentence passed by the Ld. trial court may be set aside and the appellant-Manjit Sikand may be acquitted.
In support of his contentions, Ld. counsel for the appellant-Manjit Sikand relied upon the case law cited as (2007) 9 SCC 481, (2005) 8 SCC 89, (1999) 8 SCC 190, (1979) 4 SCC 172, 2005 (1) FAC 188, 2002 (2) FAC 9 137, 2000 (1) FAC 86, 1996 (2) FAC 62, 1995 Cr. L.J 618, MANU /PH/0550/1995, MANU/ PH/0103/1995, & (2008) 7 SCC 196.
6. It has been submitted by the Ld. counsel for the appellant-M/s India Seed House and Purshotam that the impugned judgment dated 30.1.2008 and order on the point of sentence dated 31.1.2008 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is against the facts of the case and evidence on record. It is submitted that Ld. Trial Court gravely erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant was only the dealer and was neither the manufacturer nor the importer and as such was not covered u/s-30 of the Insecticide Act. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that only one witness was examined by the complainant/respondent and even the said witness had not produced or proved any document including the testing report of the analyst on record and as such the case of the complainant/ respondent was not at all proved on record. It is also submitted that Ld. Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that since the appellants herein have not adduced any defence evidence, so they were guilty and failed to appreciate that there was nothing on record for the respondent/complainant 10 to make out any case against the appellants herein and as such there was no necessity to adduce any defence evidence. It has been submitted that Ld. Trial Court has not given any cogent reason for conclusion arrived at by it and as such the impugned judgment dated 30.1.2008 and order on the point of sentence dated 31.1.2008 were not sustainable in law and it has been prayed that the said impugned judgment and order on the point of sentence passed by the Ld. Trial Court may be set aside and appellants- M/s India Seed House and Purshotam may be acquitted.
7. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the Ld. counsel for the respondent that there was no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment dated 30.1.2008 and order on the point of sentence dated 31.1.2008 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. It is further submitted that in view of the material on record, Ld. Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants under the relevant provisions of Insecticide Act and Rules. It is also submitted that the appellants have contravened various provisions of Insecticide Act and Rules and accordingly, Ld. Trial Court has correctly convicted them. It is submitted that the Insecticide Inspector has followed the proper procedure 11 for taking of the sample and distribution of the test reports in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence adduced on record and has rightly convicted the appellants herein. It is also submitted that the case law relied upon by Ld. counsel for the appellant-Manjit Sikand is not applicable as the fact and circumstances of the present case are different from the fact and circumstances of the cases discussed therein. It has been submitted that proper reasons have been given by the Ld. Trial Court in respect of the conclusions arrived at by it and there was no illegality in the impugned judgment dated 30.1.2008 and order on the point of sentence dated 31.1.2008 passed by the Ld. Trial Court and it has been prayed that the present appeals filed on behalf of the appellants may be dismissed.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and respondent and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have also carefully perused the TCR and the written submissions & case law filed on behalf of appellant-Manjit Sikand. 12
9. The present appeals have been filed on behalf of the appellants against the impugned judgment dated 30.1.2008 and order on point of sentence dated 31.1.2008 passed by the Ld. Trial Court in case titled as 'Plant Protection Officer Vs. M/s India Seed House &Ors.' bearing CC. No. 765/01 u/s 29 (1) of Insecticide Act, whereby the appellants have been convicted u/s 29 of Insecticide Act r/w Rule-27 of Insecticide Rules and have been sentenced to undergo SI for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-each in default SI for three months.
It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant-Manjit Sikand that the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2008 and order on the point of sentence dated 31.01.2008 passed by the Ld. Trial court is against the law and the facts on record. It is submitted that there was nothing in the complaint or in the evidence adduced by the complainant/respondent to show that there was any act committed by the appellant from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that he was liable for the alleged misbranding of the insecticide in question . It is further submitted that no evidence whatsoever was led by the complainant/respondent that appellant was In-charge or responsible for the conduct of business of M/s Hindustan 13 Ciba Geigy Ltd. company and in the absence of the averments or evidence thereof, the requirement of section -33 of the Act were not satisfied and the appellant could not have been convicted by the Ld. Trial Court, especially when in his statement u/s- 313 Cr.PC appellant has clarified that he was only looking after the sale operations of M/s Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd., and had nothing to do with the manufacturing and quality control. It is also submitted that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that even the deposition of CW-1 was totally silent as to the role played by the appellant so as to constitute an offence u/s- 29 of the Act. It is submitted that Ld. Trial Court gravely erred in holding that appellant could not take the plea that he was not responsible for manufacturing of alleged misbranded insecticide and failed to consider that it was the duty of the prosecution/complainant to prove that appellant was In-charge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of incident and respondent/ complainant miserably failed to do so. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that there was no nexus between the appellant and the commission of alleged offence and even the trial was held against accused no.3 M/s Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd., in absentia. It is also submitted that Ld. 14 Trial Court failed to appreciate that only two samples of alleged misbranded insecticide were taken although three samples were required to be taken in accordance of the provisions of the Act and even the copy of the analyst report was not given to the appellant therein to enable him to express his intention of adducing evidence in contravention of the said report. It is submitted that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that no documents were admitted or exhibited during the trial of the case and in the absence of evidence on record, the appellant could not have been convicted. It is also submitted that impugned judgment dated 30.1.2008 and order on the point of sentence dated 31.1.2008 were based upon conjecture and surmises and were not sustainable in law. Further, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellants-M/s India Seed House & Puroshotaam Dass that the impugned judgment dated 30.1.2008 and order on the point of sentence dated 31.1.2008 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is against the facts of the case and evidence on record. It is submitted that Ld. Trial Court gravely erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant was only the dealer and was neither the manufacturer nor the importer and as such was not covered u/s-30 of the Insecticide Act. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court failed to 15 appreciate that only one witness was examined by the complainant/ respondent and even the said witness had not produced or proved any document including the testing report of the analyst on record and as such the case of the complainant/ respondent was not at all proved on record. It is also submitted that Ld. Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that since the appellants herein have not adduced any defence evidence , so they were guilty and failed to appreciate that there was nothing on record for the respondent/complainant to make out any case against the appellants herein and as such there was no necessity to adduce any defence evidence. It has been submitted that Ld. Trial Court has not given any cogent reason for conclusion arrived at by it and as such the impugned judgment dated 30.1.2008 and order on the point of sentence dated 31.1.2008 were not sustainable in law.
The aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellants have been denied by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent, however I find considerable force in the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellants as the perusal of the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2008 reveals that the ld. Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the material 16 on record and has also failed to properly consider the contentions put forward on behalf of the appellants. The perusal of the impugned judgment further reveals that ld. Trial Court has also not properly dealt with the various averments/ submissions made on behalf of the appellants and have not recorded clear and specific findings in respect of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. In addition to this, the ld. Trial Court has also not given cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by it. In these circumstances, in my considered opinion, the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2008 and order on sentence dated 31.01.2008 passed by the ld. Trial Court are not sustainable in law and are liable to be set aside.
10. Thus, in view of the above discussion and observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2008 and order on sentence dated 31.01.2008 passed by the ld. Trial Court in case titled as 'Plant Protection Officer Vs. M/s India Seed House & Ors.' bearing CC. No. 765/01 u/s 29 (1) of Insecticide Act are set aside and the present case is remanded back to the Ld. Trial Court, who shall hear the matter afresh and shall record the clear and specific findings 17 in respect of all the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
Appellants and respondents are directed to appear before the Ld.Trial Court on 13.05.2010, for Further Proceedings.
In view of the above, the present appeals bearing CA No. 05/08 and CA No. 09/08 filed on behalf of the appellants- Manjit Sikand and M/s India Seeds House & Puroshotaam Dass stands disposed of.
The main judgment be placed in the file of CA No. 05/08 and a copy thereof be placed in the file of CA No. 09/08.
TCR alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back to the Ld.Trial Court.
Appeal files be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh)
(Court on 30.04.2010) Addl. Session Judge
(North-West)-04
Rohini/Delhi
18
19
20
CA No.-05/08
30.04.2010
Present: Sh. Rajeev Roy, counsel for the appellant with appellant in person.
Sh. Bijender Singh Inspector (Insecticide ) for the respondent. Vide separate common judgment , announced in the open court, the appeals bearing CA No. 05/08 and CA No. 09/08 have been disposed of.
Appellant and respondent have been directed to appear before the Ld.Trial Court on 13.05.2010 for Further Proceedings. TCR alongwith copy of the order be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court.
Appeal file be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh)
(Court on 30.04.2010) Addl. Session Judge
(North-West)-04
Rohini/Delhi
21
CA No.-09/08
30.04.2010
Present: Sh. Devender Choudhary, counsel for the appellant with appellant no.2 in person.
Sh. Bijender Singh Inspector (Insecticide ) for the respondent. Vide separate common judgment , announced in the open court, the appeals bearing CA No. 05/08 and CA No. 09/08 have been disposed of.
Appellant and respondent have been directed to appear before the Ld.Trial Court on 13.05.2010 for Further Proceedings. TCR alongwith copy of the order be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court.
Appeal file be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh)
(Court on 30.04.2010) Addl. Session Judge
(North-West)-04
Rohini/Delhi