Uttarakhand High Court
Atul Kumar Jain & Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand And Anr on 15 July, 2025
2025:UHC:6687
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc.Application No.526 of 2021
Atul Kumar Jain & Ors. ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Anr. .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. A.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Girish Ch. Joshi, learned A.G.A., for the State.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicants/partners
and stakeholders in M/s Arham Technochem, an agrochemical and
petrochemical manufacturing unit located in the Devbhumi Industrial
Area, Roorkee, District Haridwar, seeking quashing of proceedings
initiated under Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Poisons Act, 1919, read with
Sections 60 and 72 of the Excise Act.
2. The genesis of the case lies in the seizure of 20 kilolitres of
methanol being transported by the Applicants from Kandla Port,
Gujarat, to their manufacturing unit in Roorkee, as well as the
subsequent seizure of methanol stored in underground tanks at the unit.
3. The seizure was affected by the Excise Inspector, Roorkee, on
30.06.2019. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated against the
Applicants before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee,
and parallel show cause notices were issued by the Additional District
Magistrate, Haridwar, against the Applicants and the transporter under
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 526 of 2021, Atul Kumar Jain & OrsVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6687
the Excise Act, resulting in the institution of Case Nos. 138 of 2019 and
66 of 2020.
4. The Applicants claim that they had obtained all requisite
approvals and licenses for the possession, storage, and use of methanol,
including No Objection Certificates from the District Magistrate and
District Supply Officer, as well as permissions from the Petroleum and
Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) for underground tank
installation. They further assert that they held a valid license issued
under the Uttarakhand Poison (Possession and Sale) Rules, 2015,
bearing No. 11/Poison-R14/2018, authorizing the use of several
industrial chemicals, and argue that methanol is not classified as a
poison under the said 2015 Rules.
5. The Applicants also rely upon the fact that GST had been duly
paid for the consignment and all transport documentation, including
vehicle permits, were in order. They allege that the seizure, and the
subsequent proceedings initiated against them, are arbitrary, devoid of
jurisdiction, and in contravention of the legal framework applicable
within the State of Uttarakhand.
6. It is contended on behalf of the Applicants that the initiation of
proceedings under the Poisons Act is untenable in law, as methanol is
not included in Schedule I of the Uttarakhand Poison (Possession and
Sale) Rules, 2015, which were duly notified under Section 6 of the
Poisons Act, 1919, by the State Government of Uttarakhand in exercise
of its delegated legislative powers.
7. It is submitted that the Poisons Rules, 1921, and their
amendments, framed by the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh, stand
impliedly repealed or rendered inapplicable by virtue of the
promulgation of the Uttarakhand-specific rules. It is further urged that
the licenses and permissions relied upon by the Applicants were
lawfully issued by competent authorities and include express approval
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 526 of 2021, Atul Kumar Jain & OrsVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6687
for the installation of underground storage tanks for Petroleum Class A
and B substances, which includes methanol and xylene.
8. The Applicants also argue that the chemical in question was
purchased bona fide from a recognized source, that the tax liabilities
were discharged, and that the seizure of the consignment, in the
absence of any overt illegality, constitutes an abuse of authority and a
violation of commercial rights.
9. With respect to the show cause notices issued by the Additional
District Magistrate, it is argued that they are premature and infructuous,
as no final order prejudicial to the Applicants has been passed.
According to the Applicants, the very issuance of such notices, in the
backdrop of already ongoing proceedings before the Magistrate,
amounts to duplicity of action and forum shopping by the State.
10. They further contend that they have already suffered grave
financial losses owing to the seizure and non-release of methanol,
which is a time-sensitive chemical, and that the prolonged pendency of
proceedings would irreversibly harm their business interests. It is
therefore submitted that the continuation of the proceedings amounts to
an abuse of the process of law, and that the inherent powers of this
Court under Section 482 CrPC ought to be invoked to secure the ends
of justice.
11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that
the application is wholly misconceived and not maintainable. It is
submitted that the permissions and NOCs relied upon by the Applicants
pertain only to the construction of infrastructure such as underground
tanks and are governed by the Petroleum Act, 1934, and Petroleum
Rules, 2002. The said documents, it is argued, do not confer any
authority upon the Applicants to possess, store, or transport methanol,
which, according to the State, remains a notified poison under the
Poisons Act, 1919, read with the Poisons Rules of 1921, as amended up
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 526 of 2021, Atul Kumar Jain & OrsVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6687
to 1994. The State asserts that in the absence of a valid license
specifically authorizing possession of methanol under the Poisons Act
framework, the Applicants' act of transporting and storing the substance
is in clear violation of statutory provisions.
12. It is further submitted that the license No. 11/Poison-R14/2018,
relied upon by the Applicants, does not pertain to methanol but is
restricted to other chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide, hydrochloric
acid, sulphuric acid, and formaldehyde.
13. The State denies that any exclusion of methanol from the
Schedule of poisons has taken place under the 2015 Uttarakhand Rules,
and contends that unless expressly excluded by notification, methanol
continues to be governed by the extant rules applicable in the State.
Regarding the show cause notices issued by the Additional District
Magistrate, the State submits that these are merely preliminary steps in
the exercise of administrative powers and do not constitute adverse
orders. The Applicants, it is argued, were bound to respond to the
notices and participate in the proceedings, rather than bypass the
statutory remedy by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 482 CrPC.
14. The State maintains that the entire premise of the application is
premature and amounts to pre-emptive litigation against lawful action
initiated under statutes governing hazardous substances. It is further
contended that the Applicants' grievance, if any, lies before the
respective authorities who are seized of the matter, and that this Court
ought not to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to interfere in proceedings
which involve mixed questions of fact and statutory interpretation.
15. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.
16. The core issue arising in the present application is whether the
proceedings initiated against the Applicants under Sections 4, 5, and 6
of the Poisons Act, 1919, read with Sections 60 and 72 of the Excise
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 526 of 2021, Atul Kumar Jain & OrsVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6687
Act, warrant quashing in exercise of this Court's inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC, on the ground that methanol is not included
within the Schedule of poisons under the Uttarakhand Poison
(Possession and Sale) Rules, 2015.
17. The Applicants assert that the 2015 Rules, notified by the State
Government in exercise of powers under Section 6 of the Poisons Act,
constitute the prevailing statutory framework, and since methanol is not
listed in the appended Schedule, its possession, transport, and storage
cannot attract penal consequences under the Poisons Act. It is further
contended that the prior U.P. Poison Rules, 1921, stand impliedly
repealed or rendered inapplicable within Uttarakhand after the
notification of the 2015 Rules.
18. While the contention that subordinate legislation notified by the
State under Section 6 of the Poisons Act becomes the operative legal
regime within its territory carries some merit, the issue whether
methanol has, in fact, been excluded from regulation remains a
contested question requiring interpretive scrutiny and examination of
factual matrices not fully borne out on the face of the record. The State,
on the other hand, maintains that methanol remains a notified poison
under the erstwhile 1921 Rules, which continue to apply in the absence
of any formal repeal or express exclusion by the 2015 Rules.
19. This Court finds that the rival claims regarding the applicability
or implied repeal of the 1921 Rules, the precise scope of the 2015
Rules, and the classification of methanol as a poison under the
prevailing framework, involve mixed questions of fact and statutory
interpretation. These are not amenable to summary adjudication under
Section 482 CrPC and require evidence-based determination before the
appropriate forum.
20. The documents relied upon by the Applicants, including the
license issued under the 2015 Rules, various NOCs, GST payments,
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 526 of 2021, Atul Kumar Jain & OrsVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6687
and PESO permissions, relate largely to infrastructure compliance and
general storage permissions. Whether these documents confer lawful
authority to store and transport methanol in the manner alleged is a
matter that would have to be established through proper evidence and
cannot be conclusively inferred at this stage.
21. As regards the administrative show cause notices issued by the
Additional District Magistrate, the same are in the nature of preliminary
communications and do not, by themselves, occasion any civil or penal
consequences. The Applicants are free to raise their defense and
objections in the said proceedings, which will be adjudicated on their
own merits.
22. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is to
be exercised sparingly and with caution, only where the allegations,
even if accepted as true, do not disclose the commission of any offence
or where the proceedings manifestly amount to abuse of process. The
present case does not meet that threshold. The allegations, if taken at
face value, disclose statutory non-compliance that warrants
examination in trial. The legal pleas raised by the Applicants may form
a robust defense, but they cannot be made a ground for pre-emptive
quashing of proceedings at the threshold.
23. This Court is, therefore, not persuaded to interdict the ongoing
proceedings at this stage. The Applicants shall be at liberty to raise all
available legal and factual contentions before the Trial Court, which
shall decide the same uninfluenced by any observation made herein.
ORDER
In view of the discussion aforesaid, this Court is not persuaded to
exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing
the proceedings initiated against the Applicants.
6
Criminal Misc. Application No. 526 of 2021, Atul Kumar Jain & OrsVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6687
The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
15.07.2025
SB
SHIKSHA
BINJOLA
Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2025.07.31 11:47:57 +05’30’
7
Criminal Misc. Application No. 526 of 2021, Atul Kumar Jain & OrsVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
Ashish Naithani J.