[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhirendra Dubey vs Union Of India on 24 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15849
1 MCRC-18009-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 24th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 18009 of 2019
DHIRENDRA DUBEY AND OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Gulatee, Sr. Advocate alonwith Shri Shubhankar
Basnet and Mrs.Tulika Gulatee - Advocates for the petitioners.
Shi Sunil Jain, A.S.G alonwith Shri Arnav Tiwari - Advocate for
respondent.
ORDER
By way of the present petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS
2023 (Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C), the petitioners seek quashment of Criminal
Complaint No.11041/2018, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhopal, for the offence under Sec.17(1)(c) and 18(1)(c) of the
Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rule 1971.
2. Brief facts are that a complaint has been filed, against the petitioners,
before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, by Shri C.S.Naik, who is
working as Plant Protection Officer (Entomology), in the Directorate of
Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage, Department of Agriculture,
Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers
Welfare, Faridabad, and is notified Insecticide Inspector under Section 20 of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15849
2 MCRC-18009-2019
the Insecticides Act, 1968, on behalf of Union of India, alleging that in India,
import, manufacture, transport, distribution, sale and use of insecticides are
regulated under a comprehensive legislation, namely the Insecticide Act,
1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to prevent risk to human
beings, animals and matters connected therewith. Thus, every aspect related
to insecticides is being regulated so as to ensure their efficacy to the target
pest and safety to human beings, animals and matter connected therewith.
The Act also provides for a Registration Committee under Section 5 to grant
registration for import or manufacture of insecticides, mandatory under
Section 9 after thorough scrutiny of their formulae and verifying the claims
with regard to their efficacy and safety through evaluation of exhaustive
scientific and other data generated on the insecticides as per the guidelines,
framed under Section 5(5) of the Act, as a part of its own procedure and
conduct of business to be transacted by it to satisfy itself with the efficacy
and safety of the insecticides before registering them for permitting their use
in the country. Thus no insecticide can be imported or manufactured without
the registration thereof by the Registration Committee. No insecticide can be
manufactured, distributed exhibited for sale or sold or stocked for sale
without grant of a license by a Licensing Officer under Section 13, notified
by the State Government, who grants license for manufacture, sale, exhibit
for sale, stock, display etc. of insecticides. The insecticide Methyl Parathion
is an insecticide and being used to manufacture in registered formulation for
the control of certain harmful insects infestation in certain field crops for use
by farmers, and being highly toxic substance, these are regulated under the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15849
3 MCRC-18009-2019
Insecticides Act, 1968, in India.
3. A complaint with enclosure was received, in the Directorate regarding
illegal import of the Methyl Parathion from China. On the request of
Additional Plant Protection Advisor and Secretary, Central Insecticides
Board and others, the Chinese Regulatory Authority furnished the status of
Methyl Parathion via e-mail dated 27th of May, 2013 in which it was stated
that the Registration of Methyl Parathion was cancelled in 2005, and banned
to be used in 2007 in China, now there is no Registration of Methyl
Parathion products in China.
4. Thereafter, after investigation, a show cause notice dated 17.2.2014
was issued by the Techno Legal Cell to the opposite party suspecting that as
the Methyl Parathion could not be imported from China after 2007, hence the
consignment of products imported by the petitioner/firm in the year 2008 and
thereafter are illegal. The petitioner/firm was also asked to furnish relevant
documents with regard to import of Methyl Parathion from China including
copies of certificate of Registration of Methyl Parathion Technical and its
formulation. The firm replied vide their letter No.CF/12/3403, dated 8th
March, 2014 and No. CF-12/2681, dated 11.2.2015 denying any knowledge
of notice of ban by the Chinese Government. The firm also furnished details
of all consignments of Methyl Parathion imported from China along with
copies of customs documents related to import of said pesticides from China.
5. It is further alleged that in order to confirm the status of Methyl
Parathion in China from Chinese authorities, an email, dated 13.8.2015 was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15849
4 MCRC-18009-2019
sent by one of the Insecticide Inspector of the Department in a similar
complaint. In the reply received via e-mail dated 26th of August, 2015, the
Chinese Regulatory Authority furnished the status of Methyl Parathion
stating that the production, use and export of said insecticide are totally
banned by China since 1st of January, 2009, though registration certificate
and production licenses of Methyl Parathion were abolished by China to stop
its production for their domestic use and circulation w.e.f 9th of January,
2008. Information regarding import of Methyl Parathion by the petitioner
was sought from Central Board of Excise and Customs. From the list
provided by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, M/s Kilpest India
Ltd. had imported consignments of Methyl Parathion from China during the
year 2010, 2011 and 2012. Further, as per Section 30(1) of the Act, it is not a
valid defence in a prosecution under this Act for the accused merely to prove
that he was ignorant of the nature of the act in respect of which the offence
was committed. Thus the petitioners had imported consignment of Methyl
Parathion illegally from China during the year 2010, 2011 and 2012 as there
could not be any export of the said pesticide after December, 2008 from
China. Hence the complaint was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhopal for the offence under Section 29 of the Act for violating
Section 17(1)(c) and 18(1)(c) of the Act read with Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint
is not maintainable as no offence is made out from a bare reading of
complaint itself. The prosecution launched against the petitioners is barred by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15849
5 MCRC-18009-2019
limitation under Section 469 of the Cr.P.C. and in view of Section 469(2)(c)
of the Cr.P.C., the period of limitation to file the complaint is three years
from the date of offence. In this regard reliance has been placed on the
decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in Indofil Chemicals
Company, Bombay vs. Kunwar Singh Madhosingh Mahane 1996, CriLJ
1234: 1995 SCC Online Bom 484. The offence alleged is stated to have
committed in January, 2008, August, 2010, October, 2011 and October,
2012 and the limitation will end on February, 2011, September, 2013,
November, 2014 and November, 2015, respectively. While the complaint has
been filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 12.10.2018. It has
further been contended that the dispute in question is purely civil in nature
and continuance of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of the
process of law. It has further been submitted that no offence is made out
under Sec.29 read with Sec.17(c) and 18(1)(c) of the Act, as valid
registration of M. Parathion 2% DP, has been granted by the Board under
Sec.9(3) of the Act, and Import Registration Certificate granted under
Sec.9(4) of the Act dated 12.12.1980 for -Methyl Parathion Technical- from
firms M/s Monsato Agril Products Co. USA, M/s Veb Cgemie Kominat,
GDR, M/s Bayer AG, West Gernamy, M/s China National Chemical
Construction Company Corporation. Thus all the imports were made as per
the registration granted by the board. The sale, consumption, import etc. of
this is not banned in India and has been imposed for the first time only w.e.f
9.8.2018, thus the complaint is premature and baseless. It has further been
contended that as per Sec.31 of the Act, no prosecution without the written
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15849
6 MCRC-18009-2019
consent of State Government or Person authorised can be launched. Vijendra
Singh sought the sanction for prosecution of M/s Kilpest India which was
granted with respect to Messers Kilpest India Limited vide A-1 by letter
dated 16.3.2015. The sanction is bad in law. The sanction is illegal as the
same is granted against the company and not against petitioner Dhirendra
Dubey. Reliance has been placed judgment rendered by Rajasthan High
Court in 2004 SCC ONline Raj 287 BASF India Limited & others (M/s)
Versus State of Rajasthan and others, and 1995 SCC Online Raj 367.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present petition is
misconceived, misleading and devoid of any merit. The inherent jurisdiction
under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. is not meant to examine dispute questions of
fact or to conduct a mini trial. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any
illegality, perversity or abuse of process warranting interference by the High
Court. The insecticides are inherently toxic substance posing grave risks to
humans, animals and the environment. The registration of Methyl Parathion
was cancelled in China in the year 2005 and use banned in the year 2007.
The export of above insecticide was totally prohibited from January, 2009
onwards. These facts were officially communicated to Indian authorities via
emails dated 27.5.2013 and 26.8.2015, confirming that no lawful production
or export of Methyl Parathion existed in China after ban and the petitioners
continued to illegally import the pesticide despite ban from the year 2008
onwards. A show cause notice dated 17.2.2014 was issued, clearly stating
that imports from China was illegal after 2007, in reply the petitioners
claimed legality of imports through various trading exporters located in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15849
7 MCRC-18009-2019
Hong Kong and China. The trading exporters cited by the petitioners were
not registered under the Act. The import data supplied by the Central Board
of Excise and Customs, confirmed continued imports by the petitioners even
after ban. It has further been submitted that written consent for prosecution
was sent on 16.1.2015, prosecution was sanctioned on 16.3.2015,
authorization granted on 23.8.2017 and formal order for launching
prosecution was granted on 8.10.2018, whereafter the final complaint was
filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, on 12.10.2018.
The conduct of petitioners amounts to cheating. Importing a banned toxic
substance despite knowledge of prohibition demonstrates deliberate and
culpable intent. The question of limitation is mixed question of law and facts
and can only be decided after recording of the evidence. With regard to
objection on sanction, sanction has been taken from all departments in
accordance with the provisions of Sec.31 of the Act. If at all there is any
defect in the sanction order, the same is curable.
8. This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has carefully
examined the complaint, the material placed on record, and the law
governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
9 . The foremost contention of the petitioners is that the alleged imports
were made during the period between 2008 and 2012, whereas the complaint
was filed only in the year 2018, and therefore the prosecution is barred by
limitation under Section 469 of Cr.P.C.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15849
8 MCRC-18009-2019
10. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the allegation against the
petitioners is not confined to a single isolated transaction, but relates to
repeated imports of Methyl Parathion over a period of several years. The
authorities received official confirmation regarding the cancellation of
registration and prohibition of production and export of the said insecticide
in China only through communications dated 27.05.2013 (Annexure II) and
26.08.2015 (Annexure VI). Prior to that, there was no conclusive official
information available with the Indian authorities. It was only after receipt of
such communications that a detailed inquiry was initiated, information was
sought from the Customs Department, and further proceedings were
undertaken. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued, replies were
considered, and sanction for prosecution was obtained. In this background,
the question as to when the offence came to the knowledge of the
prosecuting agency, and from which date limitation is to be computed, is a
matter requiring evidence. Section 469 Cr.P.C. itself provides that limitation
may commence from the date of knowledge of the offence. Therefore,
limitation cannot be mechanically calculated from the date of import alone.
Further, the allegations indicate a continuing course of conduct. Each act of
illegal import constitutes a separate offence. In such cases, limitation may
commence afresh in respect of each transaction. The judgment relied upon
by the petitioners in Indofil Chemicals (Supra) was rendered in a different
factual context where the offence was complete and detectable at a definite
point of time. The said decision does not apply to a case involving delayed
discovery and continuing violations. Thus, the issue of limitation involves
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15849
9 MCRC-18009-2019
mixed questions of law and fact, which cannot be finally adjudicated at this
stage. The same is required to be decided by the trial court after recording
evidence.
11. The petitioners have contended that they possessed valid registration
and import certificates and that Methyl Parathion was not banned in India at
the relevant time. According to them, no offence under Sections 29, 17(c)
and 18(1)(c) of the Act is made out.
12. At this stage, the Court is not required to undertake a detailed
examination of the defence put forward by the accused. The jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is confined to considering whether the allegations
made in the complaint, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission
of any offence. In the present case, the complaint alleges that after the ban
imposed in China, the manufacture and export of Methyl Parathion was no
longer legally permissible from January, 2009, as is evident from Annexure
VI e-mail dated 26th of August, 2015, received from Research/Director,
International Cooperation Division, Institute for the Control of
Agrochemicals, Ministry of Agriculture (ICAMA) PR China, and that
despite this restriction, the petitioners continued to import the said substance.
It is further alleged that the exporters through whom such imports were made
were not registered under the relevant Act. If these allegations are
established, they would constitute clear violations of the statutory provisions
regulating the import of insecticides.
13. The questions whether the earlier registrations remained valid for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15849
10 MCRC-18009-2019
authorising such imports; whether the petitioners were aware of the ban; and
whether they acted in good faith, are all matters relating to the defence, and
can get benefit under Section 30(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 in which it
is mentioned that, no defence in a prosecution under this act to prove merely
that the accused was ignorant of the nature in respect of which the offence
was committed. In this regard the provision of Section 17 and 29 of the
Insecticides Act, 1968 are as follows:
"17. Prohibition of import and manufacture of certain
insecticides.--(1) No person shall, himself or by any
person on his behalf, import or manufacture--
(a) any misbranded insecticide;
(b) any insecticide the sale, distribution or use of which is
for the time being prohibited under section 27;
(c) any insecticide except in accordance with the
conditions on which it was registered;
(d) any insecticide in contravention of any other
provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder:
Provided that any person who has applied for registration
of an insecticide [under any of the provisos] to sub-
section (1) of section 9 may continue to import or
manufacture any such insecticide and such insecticide
shall not be deemed to be a misbranded insecticide
within the meaning of sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (vii)
or sub-clause (viii) of clause (k) of section 3, until he has
been informed by the Registration Committee of its
decision to refuse to register the said insecticide.
(2) No person shall, himself or by any person on his
behalf, manufacture any insecticide except under, and in
accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for
such purpose under this Act.
"29. Offences and punishment.--(1) Whoever,--
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15849
11 MCRC-18009-2019
(a) imports, manufactures, sells, stocks or exhibits for
sale or distributes any insecticide deemed to be
misbranded under sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (iii) or
sub-clause (viii) of clause (k) of section 3; or
(b) imports or manufactures any insecticide without a
certificate of registration; or
(c) manufactures, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or
distributes an insecticide without a licence; or
(d) sells or distributes an insecticide, in contravention of
section 27; or
(e) causes an insecticides, the use of which has been
prohibited under section 27, to be used by any worker
(f)..........
(2) Whoever uses an insecticide in contravention of any
provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall
be punishable with fine [which shall not be less than five
hundred rupees but which may extend to five thousand
rupees, or imprisonment for a term which may extend to
six months, or with both].
(3) Whoever contravenes any of the other provisions of
this Act or any rule made thereunder or any condition of
a certificate of registration or licence granted thereunder,
shall be punishable.
(4).........."
14. From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law, it clearly shows
that, export in contravention of any law is an offence and these issues can be
determined only after the parties have led evidence and cannot be adjudicated
at the stage of quashing proceedings. On a prima facie consideration, the
complaint discloses the essential ingredients of the offences alleged.
15. The contention of the petitioners that the present dispute is purely civil
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15849
12 MCRC-18009-2019
in nature is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit. The Insecticides Act is
a special statute enacted with the object of protecting public health,
agricultural safety, and the environment by strictly regulating the
manufacture, sale, import, and distribution of hazardous substances. The
provisions of this Act are intended to ensure that dangerous chemicals are
handled only in accordance with prescribed legal standards. Any violation of
these statutory requirements is treated as a serious offence and is visited with
penal consequences.
16. The illegal import, storage, and circulation of toxic insecticides do not
merely affect private commercial transactions or contractual relationships
between parties. Such activities have far reaching implications for public
safety, environmental protection, and the well-being of society at large. The
use or distribution of unregulated or banned insecticides poses serious risks
to farmers, consumers, and the ecosystem. Therefore, conduct of this nature,
if proved, clearly attracts criminal liability under the law. Merely because
civil remedies or commercial consequences may also arise from the same
transaction, it does not follow that criminal proceedings are barred. The
existence of a civil dispute or the possibility of civil liability does not, by
itself, exclude criminal prosecution where the allegations disclose the
commission of statutory offences. When the essential ingredients of a
criminal offence under a special enactment are made out, the matter cannot
be trivialised or reduced to a simple contractual or civil dispute.
17. The petitioners have assailed the criminal proceedings on the ground
that the sanction for prosecution is invalid. It has been contended that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15849
13 MCRC-18009-2019
sanction was granted only in respect of the company and not against the
individual petitioners, and that, on this ground, the prosecution is vitiated and
liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions he relied on the judgment
o f Rajkumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2003 SCC OnLine P&H 672, Dr. L.C.
Rohella and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2002 SCC OnLine P&H 554,
B.A.S.F. India Ltd. and others Vs State of Rajasthan and others, 2004 SCC
OnLine Raj 287 and Indofil Chemicals Company, Bombay and others Vs.
Kunwarsingh Madhaosingh and others, 1995 SCC OnLine Bom 484.
18. However, a perusal of the record reveals that the process of obtaining
sanction was undertaken in a systematic and detailed manner. The written
consent for prosecution was initially sought in January 2015. Thereafter,
sanction was granted in March 2015 (Annexure VIII). Subsequently,
authorisation was issued in August 2017 (Annexure IX), and formal approval
for launching the prosecution was finally accorded in October 2018. These
documents demonstrate that the matter was considered at several
administrative and official levels before the approval for prosecution was
granted. This indicates that the competent authorities did not act in a casual
or mechanical manner, but examined the relevant materials and records
before according sanction. The judicial precedents relied upon by the
petitioners pertain to cases where sanction was either completely absent or
was granted without due application of mind. In such cases, the courts found
that the prosecution was vitiated. However, the facts of the present case are
clearly distinguishable. Here, there is sufficient material on record to show
that the competent authorities applied their mind to the facts and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15849
14 MCRC-18009-2019
circumstances of the case before granting approval.
19. It is also relevant to note that vide letter dated 16.01.2015 (enclosed
with Annexure VIII) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
Agriculture, the prosecuting agency, Directorate of Agriculture, Government
of MP, Bhopal, was specifically directed to furnish the names, designations
and addresses of the responsible persons of the firms against whom
prosecution was proposed to be launched. In compliance thereof, the
requisite details were supplied. Though the sanction order (Annexure VIII)
refers to M/s Kilpest India Limited, the record reveals that petitioner
Dhirendra Dubey, petitioner No.1, was functioning as the authorised
signatory of the said company Kilpest India Limited, petitioner No.2. A
comparison of his signatures on the vakalatnama and Annexure R/3 shows
that the same are identical, establishing that he represented the company in
official and legal matters. This material prima facie indicates that the
petitioner was actively involved in the affairs of the company and was
responsible for its business operations. Therefore, he cannot seek shelter
behind the technical plea that sanction was granted only in the name of the
company. The sanctioning authority had, in substance, applied its mind to the
role of responsible persons, and the prosecution cannot be invalidated on this
ground.
20. Whether the sanction granted is comprehensive enough to cover the
individual petitioners, and whether it suffers from any legal defect, are issues
that require appreciation of evidence and detailed examination. These matters
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15849
15 MCRC-18009-2019
are best left to be decided by the trial court at the appropriate stage. They
cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings for quashing.
21. It is well settled in law that unless the absence or defect in sanction
goes to the very root of the jurisdiction of the court, a mere irregularity does
not render the entire proceedings invalid. Such defects are curable in
accordance with law. Therefore, at this preliminary stage, the plea relating to
alleged invalidity of sanction does not furnish any valid ground for quashing
the prosecution.
22. The inherent powers of this Court are required to be exercised with
great caution, restraint, and only in rare and exceptional circumstances. Such
extraordinary jurisdiction is not intended to be invoked as a routine measure.
While exercising these powers, the Court is not expected to evaluate the
reliability or credibility of the evidence, nor is it required to resolve disputed
questions of fact. The Court, at this stage, does not conduct a mini-trial or
undertake a detailed examination of the merits of the case. Quashing of
criminal proceedings is warranted only in cases where the complaint, on the
face of it, fails to disclose the commission of any offence, or where the
prosecution is clearly malicious, vexatious, or amounts to an abuse of the
process of law.
23. In the present case, the complaint is founded upon official
communications received from foreign regulatory authorities, import records
furnished by the Customs Department, and findings of departmental
inquiries. These materials constitute credible and substantive sources of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15849
16 MCRC-18009-2019
information. The allegations made therein are neither vague nor based on
conjectures or surmises. On the contrary, they disclose specific facts which,
prima facie, indicate the commission of statutory offences and call for proper
adjudication through a full-fledged trial. The defence put forward by the
petitioners raises issues involving disputed facts, interpretation of regulatory
and statutory provisions, and appreciation of various documentary records.
Such matters necessarily require detailed examination of evidence, including
oral and documentary evidence, and cannot be satisfactorily decided at the
threshold stage. These issues fall squarely within the exclusive domain of the
trial court. Any interference by this Court at this preliminary stage would
amount to prematurely terminating a legitimate prosecution and would result
in stifling the due course of justice. Therefore, the present case does not
warrant exercise of inherent powers for quashing the proceedings.
24. The judicial decisions relied upon by the petitioners were rendered in
the context of their own peculiar facts and circumstances. It is a settled
principle of law that precedents must be applied in the light of the factual
matrix of each case. None of the judgments cited by the petitioners lays
down any absolute or inflexible rule that criminal proceedings must
invariably be quashed in situations similar to the present case.
25. In the cases relied upon by the petitioners, either the alleged offences
were complete and undisputed at a clearly identifiable point of time, or the
prosecution suffered from a fundamental defect such as the complete
absence of statutory sanction. On account of these distinguishing features,
the courts in those matters found it appropriate to interfere and quash the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15849
17 MCRC-18009-2019
proceedings. In the present case, however, the allegations relate to a
continuing course of conduct involving repeated acts over a period of time.
The alleged violations came to light after due inquiry and investigation, and
the prosecution was initiated only after obtaining the requisite approvals
from the competent authorities. The factual and legal background is,
therefore, materially different from the cases cited. In view of these
distinguishing circumstances, the judgments relied upon by the petitioners
are clearly inapplicable to the present matter and do not, in any manner,
advance their case.
26. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.
27. A copy of the order be transmitted to the trial court concerned. It is
clarified that the observations made herein are confined only to the
adjudication of the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and
shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial
Court shall independently appreciate the evidence adduced before it and
decide the matter in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any
stands closed.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
@SM@
