Siri Ram Sat Paul vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

The petitioner firm M/s Siri Ram Sat Paul through its sole proprietor Sat Paul filed the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the complaint Annexure P I and consequent proceedings arising therefrom pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gidderbaha, District Faridkot.

The petitioner firm is a dealer of insecticides under a licence, issued by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot. The facts leading to the prosecution of the petitioner under sections 3(k) (1), 17, 18, 19 and 33 of the Insecticides Act read with rule 27 (5) of the Insecticides Rules are that on August 24, 1987 Shri Jogdinder Singh, Insecticides Inspector, Malout, visited the shop of the petitioner along with one Jagmohan Singh and found the petitioner in possession of Fenavelerate 20% E.C. (mark Fenval). He took three samples in original packing of 250 ml and sealed the same as prescribed under the rules. One sealed sample was handed over to the petitioner and one sample was sent to Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad. After analysing the contents of the sample, the Analyst reported that sample was not satisfactory in all and acidity test requirements. A showcause notice and copy of the analysis report were sent to the petitioner and then complaint was filed against the petitioner as well as M/s Markfed Agro Chemicals, S. A.S. Nagar,. Mohali as, the insecticide was manufactured by them.

In reply filed to the petition, it was admitted that the petitioner purchased pesticides from Markfed Agro Chemicals, Mohali and it was also admitted that sample was taken in 250 ml packings which were sealed packings. It was, however, contended that the petitioner firm sold insecticides to the farmers and the sample taken was found to be substandard, hence the petitioner violated the provisions of law.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner firm was not liable for an offence for contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules inasmuch as they were mere licencees and had acquired the insecticide, in question from a duly licenced manufacturer and distributor. The petitioner did not know nor he could with reasonable diligence ascertain that the insecticide in any way contravened any of the provisions of the Act. The insecticide was properly stored and it remained in the same state as it with when acquired. The learned counsel referred to the provisions of section 30 subsection 3 of the Act which reads 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 duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof;

(b) that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertain 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

In the instant case, there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner acquired the insecticide from a duly licenced manufacturer i.e. Markfed Agro Chemicals. S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. The sample while it remained in possession of the petitioner was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he, acquired it. There are no allegations in the complaint Annexure P1 that the sample was not properly stored or it was not found in the same state as when it was acquired. There are specific averments in para 2 of the complaint that three samples were taken in original packing of 250 ml. There are also no averments that the offence was committed by the petitioner in connivance with the manufacturer nor any negligence has been attributed to the petitioner. As the sample was purchased from a licenced manufacturer, the petitioner could not know with reasonable diligence that the insecticide in any way contravened any provision of the Act. The petitioner was, thus, not liable for the commission of any offence and continuation of the prosecution of the petitioner will amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

After the sample was taken from the petitioner, Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot cancelled the licence of the petitioner. An appeal was preferred against the order cancelling the licence dated February 9, 1988 before Deputy Director, Punjab, Chandigarh which was accepted and the order of the licencing authority cancelling the insecticide licence of dealer was set aside on the ground that sample was taken from sealed containers and the dealer was entitled to the benefit of subsection 3 of section 30 the Act. When the licence of the petitioner has been restored there hardly remains any justification for the continuance of the proceedings.

For the foregoing reasons the petition is allowed and the impugned complaint and consequent proceedings taken thereunder are quashed qua the petitioner.