1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 48025-M of 2007 Date of Decision: 25.11.2008 *** M/s Brar Kheti Sewa Centre. .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab through the Insecticide Inspector, Muktsar. .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is seeking quashing of criminal complaint titled as State Vs. M/s Brar Kheti Sewa Centre & Anr., pending before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar, under Sections 3(k)(I), 17, 18, 29, 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, in short) read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 and consequent proceedings thereto including the summoning order dated 25.2.2004. The aforesaid complaint was filed against the petitioner and M/s Swastic Pesticides, the manufacturer, with the allegations that on 18.7.2002 samples of Chorpyriphos 20%, Batch No.SPC 116, date of manufacturing July 2002 and expirey date June, 2004 contained in Aluminium container were drawn from the premises of the petitioner. However, on analysis the sample was found mis-branded as it was found containing active ingredients contents of 15.59 EC against 20% prescribed active contents. It was further alleged that on the request made by the petitioner, the second part of the sample was got analysed and this time also it was found misbranded. After completing the usual formalities, the complaint was filed, wherein the petitioner, being the dealer and the 2 manufacturer were arrayed as accused therein. The quashing of the impugned complaint has been sought by the petitioner on the ground that since the sample was taken from a sealed container, the protection under Section 30(3) of the Act is available to the petitioner, who being the dealer, was selling the said insecticide in the original form as obtained from the registered manufacturer, as such no prosecution can be launched against him and while granting sanction, the authority concerned failed to apply its mind and accorded the same in a very casual manner. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been contended that the sample was drawn as per procedure laid down in the Act, which on both the occasions was found to be misbranded. It has further been averred that the dealer as well as company are equally liable for selling misbranded sample, as such the petitioner is rightly sued for contravening the aforesaid provisions of Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the paper-book carefully. Section 30(3) of the Act reads as under:- 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 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 when he acquired it. The present petitioner is admittedly not a manufacturer of the relevant 3 insecticide. There is clear-cut plea in the petition that he was selling the insecticide in the sealed container in the original form as obtained from the manufacturer and the sample was also taken from the original packing. This plea has not been denied by the State in its reply. Thus, there remains no controversy that the impugned sample was obtained from the sealed container lying in the premises of the firm and there is no material to indicate that the insecticide was not properly stored or that the petitioner, in any way, was in knowledge of the fact that the insecticide contained in the containers was misbranded. Thus, the petitioner being the dealer, involved in the sale of insecticides, cannot be held liable for misbranding of the insecticides and only the manufacturer would be liable. In this context reliance can be placed on the cases of M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar Vs. Chief Agricultural Officers, Ferozepur 1990 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 623 and M/s Vimal And Co. Grain Market, Mullanpur v. State of Punjab 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 56 (P&H), followed in the case of Deepak Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 24 and reliance can be safely placed on the case of M/s Punjab Beej Bhandar Bela & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector Ropar 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 998, wherein also this Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the licensed dealer. In view of discussion above, the petition is accordingly accepted and the impugned complaint and subsequent proceedings thereto, qua the petitioner, are quashed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 25,2008 Jiten