Ranjodh Singh and another vs State of Punjab

Harbans Lal, J.—This petition has been moved by Ranjodh Singh and Gurinder Singh u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint No. 10 dated 2.2.2007 Annexure P-1 u/s 3(k), (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticide Act, 1968 (for brevity the Act) read with rule 27(5) of Insecticides Rules, 1971 titled as State v. Ranjodh Singh and others pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, the summoning order Annexure P-2, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners are the proprietors of their firms. They are the licensees under the Act to deal in various kinds of insecticides and pesticides manufactured by the companies. They sell only sealed and packed insecticides/pesticides as packed by registered manufacturing companies, who are authorized by Government of Punjab to sell their products in the State of Punjab.

On 20.7.2005 the complainant drew a sample of one insecticide i.e. Endosulfan 35% EC bearing Batch No. SAC 444, Manufacturing date 21.5.2005 and Expiry date 20.5.2007 while picking three originally sealed and packed containers weighing 500 mls as those were lying properly from the shop premises of Ranjodh Singh petitioner as manufactured by M/s. Shivalik Agro Chemicals, Mohali which is the registered and authorized manufacturing company by Government of Punjab to sell products in the State of Punjab. The material was sold by Gurinder Singh to Ranjodh Singh petitioner in the routine course of business. One part of the sample was sent to the State Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amritsar, which was found mis-branded after analysis. The second part of the sample was also found mis-branded by the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad. On 2.2.2007 the complaint was lodged in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib who without going into the facts and law on the point took the cognizance. The complaint Annexure P-1, the summoning order Annexure P-2 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners being bad in the eyes of law are liable to be quashed in view of the grounds as embodied in this petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.

The learned counsel for the petitioners eloquently urged that as alleged, the sample was drawn while picking up three originally sealed and packed containers weighing 500 mls each of one registered and authorized manufacturing company from the shop of Ranjodh Singh petitioner. The seal being intact the petitioners could not know with reasonable diligence about the contents of the originally sealed packing and that being so, it cannot be attributed to the petitioners that they have misbranded it. As per seizure memo Annexure P-3 prepared at the time of sampling by the Insecticide Inspector, only 10 bottles of 500 mls in total were lying in the shop of Ranjodh Singh petitioner. This clearly indicates that the petitioners did not have any culpable intention to cheat any person or to commit any contravention under the Act. To buttress this stance, he has sought to place abundant reliance upon the observations rendered by me in re: M/s. Jai Rath Seed Store, Bhangala and others v. Punjab State through Insecticide Inspector 2009(4) RCR (Cri) 831. The learned State counsel could not controvert these submissions in a successful manner.

I have well considered the submissions.

As would be apparent on the face of Form XX Annexure P-3, the sample of the insecticide was taken in original packing by Gurmail Singh Insecticide Inspector from the premises of M/s. R.S. Trading Company situated at village Chunni Khurad. There is no denying the fact that the petitioners are merely dealers. It is well settled that if the sample is taken from the original packing of the manufacturer and stored for sale in the same condition, the dealer is entitled to get protection u/s 30(3) of the Act, if the substance/sample drawn was in its original condition. In the instant one, as emerges out from Annexure P-3 the sample in question was contained in its original packing of 500 mls. There is nothing on the record to show that the Endosulfan 35% EC Batch No. SAC 444 of which sample was drawn was not stored in the same state. If the sample had been tampered with, the original packing would have certainly got disturbed. The same would have not been in the same state. In the nature of the things, the petitioners being the dealers cannot be held liable.

In consequence of the preceding discussion, this petition is accepted. The complaint bearing caption "State v. Ranjodh Singh and Others (Annexure P-1) pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib as also the summoning order dated 2.2.2007 Annexure P-2 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua Ranjodh Singh and Gurinder Singh petitioners are hereby quashed.

This petition is disposed of accordingly.