The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that spurious insecticides and pesticides, developed after bypassing the regulations and field trials with inferior formulations, were harming the soil fertility, besides human and cattle health. Revenue loss to the farmers was another aftermath.
The assertion came as Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill of the high court turned down the anticipatory bail plea filed by two accused facing “serious allegations” of manufacturing insecticides and pesticides illegally.
In their petition placed before Justice Gill’s Bench, the two were seeking prearrest bail in a case registered on August 29 at the Ratia Sadar police station in Fatehabad district for cheating and other offences under Section 420 of the IPC, the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the Fertilisers Control Order and Insecticides Act.
Their counsel, among other things, contended the petitioners had a licence to sell and stock insecticides and exhibiting the same for its sale and distribution. The requisite licence was shown to the raiding party. Besides this, an FIR under the Insecticides Act could not be registered as only the process of filing a complaint was stipulated in the Act.
PETITIONERS’ CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION NEEDED
Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, this court finds that the petitioners are required for custodial interrogation… Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.
The counsel further contended that the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC was not made out against the petitioners. As far as the recovery of fertiliser bags was concerned, the petitioners being agriculturalists had kept it for use.
Opposing the plea, the state counsel submitted that the recovery of two chemical mixing machines and empty bottles to be filled with pesticides and insecticides showed that the petitioners were in the illegal process of manufacturing the same. It was to be supplied to the distributors and further sold to the farmers.
Justice Gill asserted: “Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, this court finds that the petitioners are required for custodial interrogation to ascertain the source of recovered raw material (wrapper etc.). Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.”
