IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37531 of 2008 Kamlesh Kumar s/o Late Munni Lal choudhary, resident of Mahadeo Mandir Road, Town + P.S. and District- Madhubani. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Deputy Director (Plant Protection), Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga. For the Petitioner : M/s. Murari Narayan Choudhary and Vijay Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P. ------------ 2 22.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed challenging the order of cognizance dated 25.08.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in Trial No. 621 of 2007/ 444 of 2008 under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a retailer dealer of insecticides. He has purchased the said shop items from the M/s M.R. Enterprises, Exhibition Road, Patna. The manufactures of the insecticide as per Annexure-3 are Godrej Agrovet Ltd. which has its outlet at Kolkata. Two objections have been raised by the petitioner. It is firstly argued that as per Section 24 of the aforesaid Act, the test or the analysis report has to be received within a period of thirty days from the date of seizure. A copy of the said report has to be supplied to the person from whose business premises the insecticide has been collected and one copy has to be sent to the Inspector concerned. The report of the analysis shows that the 2 seized insecticide sample was misbranded as it did not contain the ingredients required. The report admittedly, was submitted beyond the period of thirty days and as such there was an infraction of the provisions of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act. The second leg of the argument is that the petitioner by virtue of being a retail dealer would not be reliable for prosecution in view of the provisions of Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act. Section 30 (3) of the Insecticides Act provide: “ that 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 when he acquired it. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is admittedly neither an agent or duly licensed manufacturer or distributor or dealer and therefore, he does not 3 come within the purview of the mischief of the Insecticides Act and he cannot be held liable for any acts committed by the Godrej Agrovet Limited Company or for that mater by any agent of the said company. Considering the aforesaid questions of law and the arguments in facts the case of the petitioner, this Court finds, that no offence is made against the petitioner and as such the Court quashes the order of cognizance dated 25.08.2007 passed in Trial No. 621 of 2007/ 444 of 2008. This application is allowed. Md. Ibrarul ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)