Punjab Pesticides vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks the quashing of the impugned complaint and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom under the Insecticides Act on the ground that petitioner is a Dealer. Insecticides Inspector drew the sample of Oxydomition Methyle 25% E.C. manufactured by Unique Farm Aid (P) Ltd., New Delhi in original packing. One set of sample was sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory and on analysis it was found misbranded as it did not conform the ISI specifications with regard to its active ingredients percentage.

The petitioner seeks the quashing of the complaint on the ground that the aforesaid insecticide, of which the sample was drawn, was stored in a sealed container in the original form as received from the registered manufacturer and, as such, the petitioner did not know whether the insecticide, in any way, was misbranded having not conformed to the ISI specifications in its active ingredients percentage. There was no averment in the complaint that the same was not stored in the proper state or it was not in the sealed container. The petitioner claimed protection under section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act which provides as under :

"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 delinquence (diligence ?) have ascertained that the insecticide in any way contravened any provision of this Act; and

(v) 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 has referred Form XX copy annexure P/1 wherein column 5 shows that the sample was drawn from original packing. Even in the impugned complaint copy annexure P/2 in para 3 it was inter alia alleged as under :

"I introduced myself to the accused Sh. Krishan Lal as Insecticide Inspector, Khuian Sarwar and intimated my desire to draw the sample of Oxydomiton Methyle 25% E.C. manufactured by M/s Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi in three original packing containers of Oxydomiton Methyle 25% E.C. Batch No. 96 UF 902 manufacturing date Jan. 96 expiry date November 97 each containing 500 Mls. were taken for sample and seizure memo (original attached) were prepared on form No. XX."

The reply was filed by way of affidavit of Insecticide Inspector, Khuian Sarvar, Tehsil Abohar where this fact was not disputed that same was drawn from the original packing, however, respondent took the stand that petitioner was not entitled for protection under section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act.

There is no averment in the impugned complaint that petitionerdealer had committed any contravention regarding the contents of sample of insecticides in question. Admittedly, the sample was drawn from the original packing which was stored in the premises of the petitionerdealer in the same state in which it was supplied. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of this court in M/s Standard Seed Store v. State of Punjab, Criminal Misc. No. 25935M of 1997 wherein under similar circumstances protection under section 30(3) of Insecticides Act was extended to the petitionerdealer and the complaint was quashed on that ground. The facts of this case are also covered by the decision rendered in case M/s Standard Seed Store v. State of Punjab (supra). Even otherwise in view of the admitted facts of this case, petitioner cannot be found even prima facie guilty of offences under which the impugned complaint has been filed has been protected under Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act. Resultantly this petition is allowed. Impugned complaint and subsequent proceedings are quashed qua the petitioner.