Mere Possession of Banned Insecticide Without Intent to Sell Is Not an Offence: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR

“It is a settled proposition of law that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done only in that manner or not at all” –  In a significant judgment Bombay High Court quashed an FIR and chargesheet filed against a licensed agrichemical retailer for stocking a banned insecticide, after holding that mere storage without sale or intent to sell does not constitute an offence under the Insecticides Act, 1968. The Division Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande ruled that “possession simpliciter” of the chemical did not attract penal consequences in the absence of proof that it was exhibited or stocked for sale.

The Court held that the entire prosecution was vitiated by procedural violations under Sections 21 and 22 of the Insecticides Act, and amounted to an abuse of process instituted with malice. Applying the law laid down in Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court observed that the lodging of the FIR without awaiting the analyst’s report and without granting the opportunity to rectify the alleged contravention rendered the action illegal and unsustainable.

“Stocking Must Be for the Purpose of Sale; Mere Storage Does Not Attract Section 18” – Court Applies Apex Court's Interpretation in Mohd. Shabbir v. State of Maharashtra

The case arose from a raid conducted on June 28, 2023, by the District Insecticide Inspector at M/s Chavhan Krishi Kendra, where a banned insecticide “Fhorate X” was allegedly found in a godown under the shop. The FIR, registered the next day, alleged offences under Section 420 IPC, Sections 3(k)(v), 3(k)(vii), 13, 17, 18, 27, 29 of the Insecticides Act, and Section 8 of the Environment (Protection) Act, among numerous Insecticide Rules.

However, the Court noted that no steps mandated under Section 21—such as ordering stoppage for 30 days and informing the Magistrate—had been taken, and the FIR was registered even before receiving the chemical analyst’s report, which arrived over a month later on August 3, 2023. The applicant, Tajraj Chavhan, had clearly stated that the stock was not for sale, had been wrongly delivered by a supplier, and had been marked ‘Not for Sale’ in the godown. These statements were corroborated by the raiding team’s own observations.

The Court held:

“If scheme of Sections 21 and 22 is perused carefully, in our view, the legislature intends that an opportunity of rectifying/remediating the deficiency is to be given to the person. No such opportunity is given in the present case and straightway a First Information Report is lodged.”

It further cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd. Shabbir v. State of Maharashtra (1979) and the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s ruling in S.H. Dhillon to conclude:

“The absence of any comma after the word ‘stocks’ clearly indicates that the clause ‘stocks or exhibits for sale’ is one indivisible whole... mere possession of the articles does not appear to be punishable under any of the provisions of the Act.”

“Prosecution Maliciously Instituted With Ulterior Motive to Harass Accused” – FIR Quashed as Case Falls Within Bhajan Lal Category 7

Taking note of the applicant’s allegation that the FIR was a result of his refusal to fulfill an illegal demand, the Court found that the prosecution was not only procedurally flawed but also maliciously motivated. Applying the Bhajan Lal principles (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Court held:

“Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the same is liable to be quashed.”

The Court further underlined that the stock in question was never exhibited for sale, and no evidence was collected to show any act of sale, intention to sell, or even exhibition in a commercial space.

“The banned insecticide was found beneath the shop in a godown and not in the shop... contents of the FIR clearly reveal that it was stored in the godown, and therefore, cannot be termed as to be for sale.”

Court Holds Insecticides Act Violations Not Attracted; Only Two Minor Procedural Infractions to Proceed

The Bench undertook a clause-by-clause analysis of each alleged violation. It ruled that Sections 3(k)(v), 3(k)(vii) (misbranding), Section 13 (license), Section 17 (import/manufacture), and Section 18 (sale) were not attracted, given that the accused was neither a manufacturer nor an importer, possessed a valid license till 2099, and the product was not misbranded as per the analyst’s report.

The Court also held that most of the Insecticides Rules cited in the chargesheet—including Rules 9, 10, 16, 18, 19—were inapplicable, as there was no evidence of sale, distribution, or manufacturing.

Only Rule 10-D (failure to display stock and price list) and Rule 15(2) (failure to maintain credit memos and account books) were found applicable, and the prosecution was permitted to continue solely on these limited grounds.

“In a nutshell, all these offences except, contravention of Rule 10-D and 15(2) would not apply in the present case.”

“When Law Is Bypassed to Harass, Courts Must Intervene”: Judicial Reminder on the Limits of Regulatory Prosecution

The High Court’s decision in Tajraj Chavhan comes as a strong message to regulatory agencies that prosecution under welfare statutes must adhere strictly to procedural safeguards, especially when such laws vest significant powers in inspecting officers.

Emphasizing that criminal law cannot be used to enforce mere regulatory infractions, the Court observed:

“We are of the considered view that no offence under IPC, Insecticides Act, Insecticides Rules (except Rule 10-D and Rule 15(2)), and Environment Protection Act is made out. The present prosecution appears to be a colourable exercise of power.”

The Bombay High Court concluded: “The First Information Report vide Crime No.0244/2023 and consequent chargesheet No.173/2023 are hereby quashed in respect of all major offences. However, prosecution may proceed for violation of Rule 10-D and Rule 15(2) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971.”

All pending applications were disposed of.

Date of Decision: October 15, 2025