IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.37470 OF 2008 KAMLESH KUMAR, SON OF LATE MUNNI LAL CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF MAHADEO MANDIR ROAD, TOWN, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT MADHUBANI ………………………………………………………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE JUNIOR PLANT PROTECTION OFFICER –CUM- INSECTICIDES INSPECTOR, MADHUBANI ……………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********* FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. MURARI NARAIN CHOUDHARY, ADVOCATE MR. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHYAY, A.P.P. **** 4 29/07/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has filed this application challenging the order dated 22.01.2008 passed in G.O. No. 354 of 2007 (Trial No. 531 of 2008) by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani has taken cognizance for the offences alleged to have been committed under Section 29 (1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The facts are that the petitioner is the retail dealer who sells insecticides. He had purchased the said insecticides from a wholesale dealer known as M. R. Enterprises. The insecticide is manufactured by Godrej Agrovet Private Limited. An inspection was made of the shop of the petitioner and the sample of Tricontanol was seized from the shop and sent for examination to the 2 Forensic Laboratory, Government of India. The Insecticides Analyst has found that the sample has been misbranded as it does not contain the active ingredients. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be protected by provisions of sub- section 3 of Section 30 of the Insecticides Act. Sub- Section (3) of Section 30 of the Insecticides Act reads as follows:- “30. Defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecutions under this Act.- (1) …………………… (2) ………………… (3) A person not being an importer or a manufacturer of an insecticide or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for a contravention of any provision of this Act, if he proves- (a) that he acquired the insecticide from an importer or a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof; (b) that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the insecticide in any way contravened any provision of this Act; and (c) that the insecticide, while in his possession, was properly stored and remained in the same state as 3 when he acquired it.” It is obvious from the facts as stated above that the petitioner is neither the manufacturer nor the distributor of the said insecticides. He is merely a shopkeeper who sells the insecticides from his retail outlet. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that he would be held responsible for manufacturing the insecticides which does not contain active ingredients. That being the position in law, I find that the order taking cognizance under Section 29 (1) of the Insecticides Act is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the order dated 22.01.2008 passed in Trial No. 531 of 2008 is quashed. This application is allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)