HC raps Punjab Agri Dept officials

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, October 28

Taking note of late filing of about 80 complaints alleging violation of the Insecticides Act, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that criminal negligence on part of Punjab Agriculture Department officials prima facie stood established.

Justice Anil Kshetrapal also directed the forwarding of the order’s copy to the minister in-charge, the Chief Secretary and Director-General, Vigilance, “to look into the matter and take appropriate steps”. Justice Kshetrapal said the complaints were filed beyond the time prescribed and were likely to fail on that ground alone. “A very sad state of affairs in discharge of duties by the officials working in the Department of Agriculture, Punjab, has come to the notice of this court…. Prima facie criminal negligence, which adversely affects the society at large, is established on part of officials of the department of agriculture….”

The assertion came in a case where complaint was not filed within the time prescribed under Section 468 of the CrPC.

Justice Kshetarpal observed it was unfortunate that the officials did not take timely action of lodging complaint as provided under the Insecticide Act and rules. The court was flooded with such petitions filed by manufacturers and dealers for quashing complaints on the ground that these were filed after the stipulated period.

Justice Kshetarpal said various petitions had, in fact, been filed by accused manufacturers, distributors and dealers claiming these were filed beyond permissible time.

Referring to an affidavit filed by the department secretary, Justice Kshetarpal added it was admitted that the complaints were filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 468 of the CrPC in 76 cases.

Another affidavit was filed stating that a new standard procedure had been laid down and in future efforts would be made to ensure timely filing of such cases and their proper monitoring.

The Department’s Principal Secretary assured the court that efforts would be made to ensure that “such mistakes are not be repeated” in future.

Justice Kshetarpal added reading of the complaint made it apparent that the prosecution-complainant did not even attempt to seek extension of time. “In view of the aforesaid, this court is compelled to quash the criminal prosecution initiated being beyond the time prescribed. Hence, petition allowed,” Justice Kshetarpal asserted.