Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) quashed an FIR and charge sheet filed against an agro-dealer accused of storing banned insecticides, holding that the procedure prescribed under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rules, 1971 had not been followed. The Division Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande held that “when a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner or not at all.”
The Court observed that mere possession or storage of banned insecticides, without proof that they were “stocked or exhibited for sale,” does not attract criminal liability. The Court thus quashed offences under Sections 420 IPC, 3(k)(v), 3(k)(vii), 13, 17, 18, 27, and 29 of the Insecticides Act, and several Rules under the Insecticides Rules, 1971, except for minor violations of Rule 10-D and Rule 15(2) relating to maintenance of stock and price registers.
Facts
The case arose from a raid conducted by the District Quality Control Inspector (who also functioned as the Insecticide Inspector under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act) at an agro-store in Gondia district on 28 June 2023. During inspection, the officer allegedly discovered 33 bags of a banned insecticide, Fhorate (Fhorate X), manufactured in June 2020 and expired in December 2022.
Although production and sale of Fhorate had been banned by the Central Government from 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2020 respectively, the officer alleged that the applicant had kept expired, prohibited stock for illegal sale. Based on this, an FIR was lodged the next day (29 June 2023) under multiple provisions of the Insecticides Act and IPC, followed by a charge sheet dated 10 September 2023.
The applicant, a licensed dealer, sought quashing of the FIR and charge sheet under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, asserting that he was falsely implicated and that the officer had acted maliciously after demanding illegal gratification.
Issues
- Whether mere possession or storage of banned or expired insecticides without proof of sale constitutes an offence under the Insecticides Act, 1968.
- Whether the statutory procedure under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act was violated by lodging an FIR before obtaining a laboratory report.
- Whether the case falls within the parameters for quashing criminal proceedings laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335).
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that even if the allegations were accepted at face value, no offence was made out. He was a licensed dealer and the seized insecticides had been stored accidentally, not for sale. His statement recorded by the police clarified that the goods were marked “Not for Sale” and had been wrongly supplied by another dealer, for which he had been repeatedly requesting return.
It was argued that Sections 21 and 22 of the Insecticides Act mandate specific procedures—such as seizure reporting, sampling, testing, and providing an opportunity to remedy defects—before any criminal action can be taken. Instead, the FIR was filed before the analyst’s report dated 3 August 2023, violating the statutory safeguards. The defence further alleged that the inspector acted maliciously and with personal grudge, amounting to abuse of process.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the plea, asserting that the insecticide was banned and the inspection revealed a substantial stock of expired and misbranded material. Samples had been seized and analyzed at the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amravati, which confirmed misbranding. Hence, according to the State, offences were clearly made out under the Insecticides Act and Environmental Protection Act.
Analysis of the Law
The Court began by analyzing the object and framework of the Insecticides Act, 1968, enacted to regulate manufacture, sale, transport, and use of insecticides to prevent risk to humans and animals. Sections 21 and 22 grant powers to inspectors to search, seize, and temporarily stop sale of insecticides suspected to be in contravention of the Act, but these powers are circumscribed by procedural safeguards.
Under Section 21(1)(d), an inspector may stop sale or seize insecticides believed to contravene the Act only for 30 days, pending analysis. Section 22(2) further mandates that the inspector must act with “all dispatch” in ascertaining contravention and, if not found, revoke the seizure and return the goods. The Court emphasized that the inspector in this case lodged the FIR the very next day, without waiting for the chemical analyst’s report—a direct breach of the statutory scheme.
Citing the Privy Council decision in Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor (AIR 1936 PC 253) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (2016) 8 SCC 622, the Court reiterated that if a statute prescribes a particular method for performing an act, it must be done only in that manner or not at all.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on multiple precedents to interpret “stocking for sale”:
- State of Punjab v. S.H. Dhillon, 1982 SCC OnLine P&H 602 — Held that mere storage of insecticides without proof of “stocking or exhibiting for sale” is not an offence. The Punjab and Haryana High Court drew support from the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd. Shabbir v. State of Maharashtra (1979) 1 FAC 111, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, where it was clarified that “stocking for sale” is an indivisible phrase implying intent to sell.
- Safex Chemical India Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 2001 SCC OnLine P&H 37 — Reaffirmed that possession of insecticides in a godown, not exhibited for sale, cannot be construed as an offence under Section 18 of the Act.
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 — The Court invoked Clause (7) of para 102 to hold that criminal proceedings can be quashed where they are “manifestly attended with mala fide” or instituted “to wreak vengeance on the accused.”
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench found that the inspector had acted in contravention of Sections 21 and 22 by filing an FIR immediately after seizure without adhering to the statutory process. The legislature’s intention was to provide the dealer an opportunity to remedy or explain deficiencies before criminal prosecution.
The Court accepted the petitioner’s explanation that the banned insecticides were kept in a basement storage, marked “Not for Sale,” and meant for return to the supplier. There was no evidence of exhibition or sale. The Bench emphasized that mere storage in a godown does not amount to stocking for sale, aligning with judicial precedents.
Moreover, the Court noted that the applicant held a valid license till 2099, and none of the offences relating to manufacture, import, or sale under Sections 13, 17, and 18 were applicable. The only procedural lapses pertained to display of stock and maintenance of accounts, attracting minor violations under Rules 10-D and 15(2).
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court partly allowed the application, holding:
“The FIR and charge sheet for offences under IPC, Insecticides Act, and Environmental Protection Act are quashed. The prosecution shall, however, continue only for minor violations under Rules 10-D and 15(2) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971.”
The judgment underscores that criminal liability cannot arise without strict compliance with procedural mandates, particularly when no evidence indicates intent to sell banned goods. The Court’s interpretation safeguards licensed dealers from arbitrary prosecutions initiated in violation of statutory procedure.
Implications
This judgment clarifies the scope of offences under the Insecticides Act—establishing that mere possession of banned or expired insecticides is not punishable unless accompanied by intent to sell. It reiterates the principle that authorities must follow statutory procedure meticulously before initiating prosecution. The decision is a significant precedent protecting agro-dealers and traders from harassment under environmental and agricultural regulations, while ensuring procedural fairness in enforcement.
