C.W.P. No.5078 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.5078 of 2010 Date of Decision. 07.12.2011 M/s Ludhiana Kisan Sewa Centre, Bus Stand Road, Rampura, District Bathinda through its proprietor Avtar Singh s/o Darshan Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Vineet Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks for quashing of the orders issued by the authorities constituted under the Insecticide Act, 1968. The petitioner was a dealer in insecticides and had been licenced to store and sell goods, which are classified under the Insecticide Act. On inspection of one of the branded items said to have been manufactured by M/s Anu Products Limited, Ludhiana, sample of a particular product 2, 4-D Ethyl Ester 38% EC (Anuweed) had an active ingredient as 30.54% E.C against 38% E.C, which had been contained in the label. Consequently, the notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why action shall not be taken for misbranding of products and for alleged offences under Section 3K(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The petitioner had given a reply and being not satisfied, the authorities had cancelled the licence. C.W.P. No.5078 of 2010 -2- The appeal filed before the Appellate Authority was also dismissed. 2. Amongst the contentions, the petitioner would state that the sample taken was a sealed product and the petitioner himself had no idea that there was any misbranding of the product. The petitioner was under the bona fide belief that the product stored by him was not in any way contravened any of the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to me a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Kissan Beej Bhandar Vs. Chief Agricultural Officer and another, which held that when dealer was contending that he had purchased a full sealed tin from authorized distributor and that the seal had not been tampered when the tin was recovered from the shop, the burden under Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act was discharged. The cancellation of licence, which had been made was, therefore, ordered to be set aside. Section 30(3) reads as follows:- “30. Defence which may or may not be allowed In prosecutions under this Act.- (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) xxxx xxxx xxxx (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. 3. This section was applied by this Court in Dharam Pal Vs. State of Punjab through Secretary 1994(2) PLR 397 when it held that the C.W.P. No.5078 of 2010 -3- protection under Section 30(3) was available to a licencee not only when he was sought to be prosecuted but even when he was alleged to have contravened other provisions of the Act. In that case also cancellation of licence, which had been made was ordered to be restored. 4. In spite of explanation given by the petitioner that the product which had been taken for analysis had been in a sealed condition and that he had not known that the product was misbranded, the authorities have not considered this objection at all. They have merely referred to the fact that the chemical analysis had shown that the active ingredients found in the product had shown a difference from what was specified in the label and therefore, the petitioner was guilty of misbranding and liable to be forfeiture of his licence. The important objection of his own bona fide was not considered at all. 5. The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be issued with licence in accordance with law. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 07, 2011 Pankaj*