THE HON’BLE SRI JUTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Petition No.9628 of 2009 Order: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/A4 and A5 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 77 of 1993 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda, Guntur District. The second respondent-Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur, filed the complaint alleging that the petitioners herein who are A4 and A5 along with A1 to A3 are responsible for stocking and selling the misbranded stocks of Phorate 10%. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner/A4 is the firm and that the stocks were supplied by A1 firm and that they are innocent and they have no knowledge about the quality of Phorate as alleged by the second respondent. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken me through the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968. Section 29(1)(a) of the said Act is as follows. 29. Offences and punishment:- (1) Whoever,- (a) imports, manufactures, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes any insecticide deemed to be misbranded sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (iii) or sub-clause (viii) or Clause (k) or Section 3; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both. “Misbranded” has been defined under section 3(k) of the Act. Section 30 is as follows. 30. Defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecutions under this Act:- (1) Save as hereinafter provided in this section, it shall be no defence in a prosecution under this Act to prove merely that the accused was ignorant of the nature or quality of the insecticide in respect of which the offence was committed or of the risk involved in the manufacture, sale or use of such insecticide or of the circumstances of its manufacture or import. (2) For the purposes of Section 17 an insecticide shall not be deemed to be misbranded only by reason of the fact that,- (a) there has been added thereto some innocuous substance or ingredient because the same is required for the manufacture or the preparation of the insecticide as an article of commerce in a state fit for carriage or consumption, and not to increase the bulk weight or measure of the insecticide or to conceal its inferior quality or other defect; or (b) in the process of manufacture, preparation or conveyance some extraneous substance has unavoidably become intermixed with it. (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 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. Admittedly, the manufacturers A6 and A7 were licensed manufacturers. The petitioners herein have supplied the stocks to A1 firm and stocks have been supplied to A4 firm by A6 firm. Under sub- section (3) of Section 30 of the Act, if the accused proves that he could not known with reasonable diligence that the insecticide in any way contravened the provisions of the Act and that the insecticide, while in his possession, was properly stored is not liable for contravention of the provisions of the Act. There is no allegation against the petitioners that the stocks were not properly stored when they were with the petitioners. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have obtained the insecticides from the licensed manufacturer and they did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the insecticide in any way contravened any provision of the Act. The petitioners are also licensed dealers. Of course, mere plea that they are ignorant of the quality of insecticides is no ground to quash the proceedings. But what is to be seen is that whether there is any allegation to show that the petitioners did not take appropriate care or they were not with due diligence ascertained that the insecticides in any way contravened the provisions of the Act. If there is any allegation that they had indulged in the commission of the offence knowingly or without taking proper care then they are liable for the offence and in the absence of any such allegation, I am of the view that the proceedings cannot be continued against the petitioners. Mensrea plays an important role in any offence. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/A4 and A5 alone are quashed. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 15.12.2011 Nsr