Muhammad Farman vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 1495 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Muhammad Farman VS State Ss. 3,21(1), 21(2)(b) & 21-a---Punjab agricultural Pesticides Rules, 2018, R. 13(1)(b)---Selling of expired / substandard pesticides---"Expired pesticide"---Scope---Whether or not, "expired pesticide" falls in the definition of "substandard" given in clause (rr) of S.3 of the agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971 (Ordinance)---Term "expired pesticide" is neither expressly defined nor mentioned in the Ordinance nor under Punjab agriculture Pesticides Rules, 2018 (' the Rules 2018') and there is only one reference in R. 13(1)(b) of the Rules 2018---Term "substandard" in S.3(rr) of the Ordinance applies to two types of products: (a) the pesticide whose strength or purity falls below the purported standard or quality specified on its label or under which it is sold; (b) the pesticide whose valuable ingredient has been wholly or partially extracted---Pesticides that have passed their expiration date lose their effectiveness---They may also change chemical composition, harming not just the crop but also people and the environment---Pesticides sprayed too close to water might drift and deposit fine spray droplets away from their target, contaminating surface water---Drift incidents can pollute surface water more than runoff or leaching---Therefore, expired pesticides are included in part (a) of the definition of "substandard" given in S.3(rr) of the Ordinance---Consequently, the provisions of S.21(2)(b) apply when a person sells expired pesticides. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1495 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Muhammad Farman VS State S. 498---agricultural Pesticides Ordinance (II of 1971), Ss. 3, 21(1), 21(2)(b), 21-a & 26-a---Punjab agricultural Pesticides Rules, 2018, R. 13(1)(b)------Selling of expired / substandard pesticides , allegation of---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of---License to sell pesticides, absence of---Complainant (Inspector Pesticides/agriculture Officer), seized expired pesticides being offered for sale from the shop (general store) run by the petitioner/accused, and during interrogation, it was found that he(accused) had no license to sell such items---Held, that Petitioner/accused was also accused of selling pesticides without a license and , admittedly, agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971('the Ordinance 1971') did not specifically provide for such an offence, however , High Court viewed that S.21-a of the Ordinance 1971 would apply; and said offence was also cognizable and non-bailable under S.26-a of the Ordinance 1971---Pre-arrest bail was declined to the accused, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1495 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Muhammad Farman VS State S. 498---agricultural Pesticides Ordinance (II of 1971), Ss. 3, 21(1), 21(2)(b) & 21-a---Punjab agricultural Pesticides Rules, 2018, R.13(1)(b)---Selling of expired / substandard pesticides , allegation of---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of---Laboratory test of pesticide, requirement of---Scope---Complainant (Inspector Pesticides/agriculture Officer), seized expired pesticides being offered for sale from the shop(general store) run by the petitioner/accused, and during interrogation, it was found that he(accused) had no license to sell such items---Contention of the accused/ petitioner was that the prosecution must demonstrate through a laboratory test that an expired pesticide had become "substandard" before alleging a violation of S.21(2)(b) of the Ordinance---Held, that said test was not required because the manufacturer declared on the label that the product's quality would deteriorate after the expiry date---Pre-arrest bail was declined to the accused, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1495 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Muhammad Farman VS State Ss. 498 & 497(2)---agricultural Pesticides Ordinance (II of 1971), Ss. 3, 21(1), 21(2)(b) & 21-a---Punjab agricultural Pesticides Rules, 2018, R. 13(1)(b)---Selling of expired / substandard pesticides, allegation of---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of---Mala fide of the complainant, absence of---Complainant (Inspector Pesticides/ agriculture Officer), seized expired pesticides being offered for sale from the shop (general store) run by the petitioner/accused, and during interrogation, it was found that he(accused) had no license to sell such items---Validity---Petitioner/accused had failed to point out any mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police regarding registration of the present case, which was a pre-requisite for the grant of pre-arrest bail---Pre-arrest bail, being discretionary relief, was meant to protect innocent people implicated in a criminal case for devious and ulterior motives , which could not be granted unless the accused met conditions mentioned in S.497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898---accused was to demonstrate that reasonable grounds existed to believe that he was not guilty of the alleged offence and there were sufficient grounds to warrant further inquiry---Petitioner had failed to make out case for grant of extra-ordinary relief---Bail was declined to the accused, in circumstances.

Muhammad Farman vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 1495 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ