ISHRAT NAEEM and another vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners, who are a pesticide dealer and his employee, in connection with FIR No. 204/2016. The petitioners were charged under the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971, following the discovery of substandard pesticide samples taken from their premises. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as authorized dealers holding valid licenses and purchasing stock through proper invoices, could be held criminally liable for the spurious nature of the products without evidence of their knowledge or intent. The Court held that the liability for substandard pesticides rests with the manufacturers or importers, not the authorized dealers, absent evidence of conscious knowledge or adulteration. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant law and that no recovery was required from the petitioners. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that a licensed dealer is not vicariously liable for the spurious nature of registered stock purchased through proper channels without proof of mens rea.
- Is an authorized pesticide dealer criminally liable for the spurious nature of stock purchased through proper invoices?
- Does the sale of substandard pesticides by a licensed dealer fall within the prohibitory clause of the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance 1971?
- Is further inquiry required to determine the guilt of a dealer when the prosecution fails to show the dealer's knowledge of the substandard nature of the products?
- Section 21(1), Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance 1971
- Section 21(2)(b), Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance 1971
- Section 26-A, Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance 1971
ORDER
The Petitioners have applied, for pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 204/2016 dated 04.11.2016 registered at Police Station Thatha Sadiqabad, District Khanewal, for offences under Sections 21(1)/21(2)(b)/26-A of the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971.
2. Petitioner No. 1 runs a shop under the name and style of M/s. Talha Traders at Main Road, Thatha Sadiqabad, where he sells pesticides. Petitioner No -2 is an employee of Petitioner No 1. The allegation against the Petitioners is that on 22-9-2016 the Complainant, who is Deputy District Officer Agricultural, Jahanian, visited the aforesaid premises of Petitioner No. 1 and took a sample from his stocked pesticides which turned out to be substandard when it was sent for laboratory analysis.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the patties and perusing the record it is observed that the Petitioner No. 1 holds a valid license to run the business of pesticides and is an authorized dealer of Welcome Agro Chemicals. On the other hand, Petitioner No. 2 is his employee. It is not the case of the prosecution that the I Petitioners are engaged in the aforesaid business without a valid license.
4. A perusal of the FIR shows that there is no allegation against the Petitioners that they were selling adulterated pesticides. No material has been brought on the record in this respect tither.
5. The stocks of pesticides held by Petitioner No. 1 are registered. He purchased these stocks through a proper invoice. There is no allegation that the seals of the samples were broken or were tempered. As such, the Petitioners are not responsible if any part of these stocks have turned out to be spurious. The liability must be traced to the manufacturers and/or the importers thereof. The prosecution has not placed on record any material to show that the Petitioners were conscious of the fact that the stocks in question were substandard. In this view of the matter, it requires further inquiry to determine the guilt of the Petitioners.
6. Nothing is to be recovered from the Petitioners. No useful purpose would be served in sending them behind the bars. Even otherwise, offence with which the Petitioners are charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause.
7. In view of the foregoing, the instant application is accepted. Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the Petitioners in terms of order dated 01-12-2016 is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.