IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1006 of 1997. Date of Decision: 12.1.2011. State of Punjab ....Petitioner Versus M/s Roshan Lal Trehan & sons & another. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Ranvir Singh Chauhan, AAG Punjab, for the petitioner-State. Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate, for the respondents. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision has been filed by the State of Punjab challenging the order dated March 20th, 1997 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, whereby, Roshan Lal proprietor of M/s Roshan Lal Trehan and sons was discharged in a complaint filed by the State under Section 29 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act'). 2. Concededly, Roshan Lal was dealer of a manufacturing company of insecticides in the name and style M/s. Tropical Agro System Limited. Sample of Isoproturon 75% HP (Wonder) was taken from batch No.123. 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. 1006 of 1997. (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. 1006 of 1997. (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, no illegality or irregularity is discernible in the impugned order passed by the Court below. Thus, the revision is dismissed. 12.1.2011. NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE