' Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of case F.I.R No,223 of 2001, dated 19-5- 2001 under section 21-A of the Pesticides Ordinance, 1971, registered with Police Station City Depalpur, District Okara, 2: Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claim that petitioner No,1 is storekeeper while petitioner No,2 is Regional Manager, Agrochemical and Seeds Business,.
ICI Pakistan Limited, Sahiwal, a Public Limited Company engaged inter alia amongst the other businesses in the manufacture and sale of pesticides. Extra-Assistant Director, Agriculture Extension, Depalpur got registered the impugned F.I.R. Against the petitioners alleging therein that the quantity of pesticides was not found as has been mentioned on the bottle, hence the petitioners are label to be prosecuted under the above-said sections.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no offence is made out from the bare perusal of the F.I.R. And the petitioners being agents of ICIC Company are not guilty of any offence. Hence the F.I.R. Is liable to be quashed. He has relied upon Muhammad ldrees and 2 others v. Chairman, Ghee Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. 1999 PCr.LI 1025, Agha Nadim and another v. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Lohari Gate and another (1998 PCr.LJ 181), Taufuq Ahmed v. SHO, Sialkot 1987 PCr.LJ 2384, Mian Muhammad Abbas Sharif and 2 others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 2 others (1995 PCr.LJ 1224), and prays for quashment of the F.I.R. As has been lodged without lawful authority by the complainant. It is further contended that section 21-A only provides punishment if anybody contravenes any provisions of this Ordinance and rules, who shall be punished with fine to the tune of Rs,50,000. It is further contended that under section 24 of the Pesticides Ordinance, 1971 the articles could be seized by the Inspector and not by the Extra-Assistant Director as has been shown in this case. It is further contended that no Court can take cognizance other than the Magistrate 1st Class. Under section 26-A of the Ordinance only Inspector can file complaint and he will be responsible for conducting of the prosecution. It is argued that as the instant F.I.R. Has been lodged by the EADA, hence he was not competent to do so, and the F.I.R. Is liable to be quashed on this score only.
4. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Shah Gul, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the A.A.-G. Has argued that all the manufacturers of pesticides are required to have pesticides registered as envisaged under section 4 of the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971 as amended up to.
1997. Rule 3 of the Agricultural Pesticides Rules, 1973 (framed under the Ordinance) requires that an application for registration of pesticides shall . Be submitted to the Federal Government in Form I.
The Form I under packaging reads as under:--- "State weight/or for liquids, volume and the size of packages in which the produce is to be marked and for each size, the type of package, for instance 1 k.g. In canes with screw plug and 50 k.Gs. In iron drums."
' Section 10 of the Ordinance requires that each package shall carry a label in such form and such manner as may be prescribed. In Part V, Packing and Labeling under labeling mention of net contents is essential."
' It has been mentioned in the F.I.R. That weight, volume 80 ml against the packing of 100 ml. And Extra-Assistant Director was authorized under section 15 of the Ordinance to lodge the F.I.R., hence F.I.R. Has been lodged by the competent forum and it cannot be quashed on this score. It is further contended that the quantity of the pesticides was less than the quantity given on the label of the bottle, hence it was in violation of the rules and in contradiction of law hence under section 21A, this F.I.R. Was competent and the offence is punishable. Therefore, there is no ground for the quashment of F.I.R. Prima facie case against the petitioner is made out. Hence the writ petition merits dismissal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record. Section 21-A of the Ordinance 1971 provides punishment if any person, who contravenes any of the provision of other Ordinance or the rules for which no punishment is provided under the Ordinance. It is mandatory to all the persons as agents or storekeepers or the company concerned under rule 3 of the Agricultural Pesticides Rules, 1973 to sell the Pesticides for which registration has been duly made before the Federal. Government in Form I, as reproduced hereinbefore. Section 10 of the Ordinance also requires that each package shall carry a label in such form and such manner as may be prescribed. Admittedly in the instant case I.C.I. Is a Registered Firm and is selling the pesticides throughout the country. The bottle, which was taken into possession by the EADA, it is mentioned in the lable that it is 100 ml. Actually it was found less than 100 ml. And only 80 ml. Was found therein.
Hence contravention of the rule 3 of the Form I is made out which is punishable under section 21-A of the Ordinance, hence the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that section 21-A is not made out is incorrect. As far as registration of the case by EADA is concerned section 15 of the Ordinance authorizes EADA Agricultural to seize the pesticides being sold in contravention of the rules and also can initiate action including registration of case, as all the EADAs Extension, Depalpur have been duly designated as Inspector, under section 15 according to the reply of the Additional Secretary Planning-respondent No,2. Copy of the Notification has also been produced in this Court, therefore, it has become clear that EADA has also been designated as Inspector, for the registration of case. Hence contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that EADA could not register the case is repelled.
6. The case-law referred by learned counsel for the petitioners does not help to the petitioners because the facts and circumstances of the cases relied upon by the petitioners are different than that of the petitioner's case. In 1995 PCr.LJ 1025 it is held that if the case is registered with mala tide, which is proved and the matter is purely that of civil nature, F.I.R. May be quashed. These ingredients are not found in the present case. In 1998 PCr.LJ 181 the preposition is that a criminal case was registered under the Drugs Act, 1976 without prior permission of the Quality Controller. In 1987 PCr.LJ 2384 the untenable objection by the State that challan based on the F.I.R. Had already been put in Court and the writ petitioner/accused have remedy open to him under section 249A, Cr.P.C. Was repelled and the F.I.R. Was quashed. Similarly the other case-law referred by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no avail to the petitioners in any manner. Moreover, factual controversies cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction as High Court cannot assume the role of Investigating Officer. No case for quashment of the F.I.R. Has been made out, Thence this writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.