IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2000. Date of Decision: 12.1.2011. M/s Roshan Lal Trehan & sons ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir Singh Chauhan, AAG Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision has been filed by Roshan Lal-dealer challenging the order dated May 27th, 2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur setting aside the order dated January 2nd, 1997 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, whereby, the petitioner was discharged in a complaint filed by the State under Section 29 of the Insecticide Act, 1968. The Additional Sessions Judge directed the trial Court to proceed further in the matter according to law. 2. Concededly, Roshan Lal-petitioner was dealer of a manufacturing company of insecticides in the name and style M/s. Avid and Company Chemical Limited. Sample of 25% EC oxydemeto methyle (mode) was taken from batch No. E-034. Each packet was sealed. It was found misbranded. It is also not in dispute that insecticide was acquired from the licensed manufacturer in a sealed container and while in possession of the dealer, the insecticide was properly stored and it remained in the same condition as when it was acquired. The dealer could not know with reasonable diligence that the insecticide in any way contravened any provision of the Act. Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2000. (2) 3. In this view of the matter, prosecution could not have been launched against Roshan Lal in view of Section 30(3) of the Act. To support the view, there is catena of judicial pronouncements. For reference, a few of them are hereby referred to. 4. M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar vs. Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur and another, 1990 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 623, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "We are inclined to accept the submission and take the view that whether it is prosecution or contravention leading to cancellation, sub-section (3) applies. In this view of the matter on the facts found that it was a full tin in a sealed condition, the liability arising out of misbranding was not of the appellant. Unless he had any other source of information about misbranding and it has not been established the appellant is entitled to the protection of sub-section (3). In the facts once the appellant's contention that it was sealed tin intact has been found, the burden that lay on him under the provision of sub-section (3) has been satisfactorily discharged, even in the matter concerning the question of cancellation of licence and, therefore, his licence should not have been cancelled." 5. In Amar Khad Store vs. State of Punjab 1996(3) RCR (Criminal) 140 it was observed that:- "In this regard reference has also been made by Mr. Chopra on the authority of the Single Bench of this Court reported as 1992(1) Recent Criminal Reports 613. In that case the petitioner had acquired the insecticide from a duly licensed manufacturer i.e. Markfed Agro Chemicals, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. The sample while it remained in Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2000 (3) possession of the petitioner was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it. There were no allegation in the complaint that the sample was not properly stored or it was not found in the same state as when it was acquired. It was, therefore, held that as the sample was purchased from a licensed manufacturer, the petitioner could not know with reasonable diligence that the insecticide in any way contravened any provision of the Act." 6. Above being the factual and legal position, the revision is accepted and the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge is set-aside and that of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur is restored. 12.1.2011. NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE