Standard Seed Centre vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint (copy Annexure P3) and the consequential proceedings flowing therefrom.

The relevant facts necessary for disposal of this petition may be noticed as under :

The petitionerfirm M/s Standard Seed Centre, Mandi No. 1, Abohar is a licensed firm having a valid authority to sell, store for sale and exhibiting for sale different varieties of insecticides/pesticides. A licence was duly granted to the petitioner firm by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur. Ram Kumar is the sole proprietor of the petitioner Firm.

On 9.9.1996, Shri Sukhdev Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Abohar, alongwith Dr. Major Singh Brar, APPO Abohar, paid a visit to the shop of the petitioner/firm and found one Bahadur Singh salesman of the petitioner firm present at the shop. The Inspector after giving his introduction to the salesman expressed his desire to draw a sample of the insecticide Chloropyriphos 20% BC, manufactured by M/s Tech Spark Chemicals (Pvt.) Limited. Three original packing containers of the said insecticide, having batch No. 03, of manufacturing date 20.8.1996 and due to expire on 19.8.1998, each containing 1000 Mls. were taken as sample vide seizure memo, prepared on the requisite form XX. The seizure memo was got signed from said Bahadur Singh. The three samples were then kept in clean and dry polythene bags separately. The sample was sealed with the seal of II AGR Abohar. An offer was given to the dealer also to affix his own seal on the samples, but he did not do so. The Inspector duly made payment of the three samples and one such sealed sample was handed over to Bahadur Singh salesman. The two sealed samples were sent to the office of the Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur through Shri Major Singh Brar, APPO vide letter dated 9.1.1996. One of the said two samples was sent to the Analyst Insecticide Laboratory, Ludhiana. On analysis, the sample was found to be misbranded as it did not conform to the ISI specifications in active ingredients percentage, as it contained 15.44 active ingredients percentage as against the requisite 20 active ingredients percentage. Copy of the report of the analyst was sent to the accused dealer/distributor and manufacturer, vide show cause notices No. 9615 dated 26.9.95 and 9618 dated 29.6.1996. After obtaining the necessary sanction for prosecution of the dealer/manufacturer, the complaint was filed by the Insecticide Inspector in the Court of Shri B.S. Mangat, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar on 12.3.1997 under Sections 3(k)(1), 17, 18 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"), punishable under Section 29(1) of the Act.

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 sample 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 Act.

Notice was issued to the respondentcomplainant, who put in appearance and filed written statement in the form of the affidavit of Shri Sukhdev Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Abohar. It was averred, inter alia, that the sample was taken in accordance with the procedure under Section 22(5) of the Act. It was contended that the petitioner was not entitled to seek protection under Section 30(3) of the Act as he had violated the provisions of the Act.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Punjab/respondent and have carefully gone through the pleadings and the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgement of this Court in M/s. Saini Beej Bhandar and another v. State of Haryana through Quality Control Inspector, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 16958/M of 1997, wherein it was held while following the earlier judgment of this Court reported in M/s. Siri Ram Sat Pal v. The State of Punjab, 1992(1) R.C.R. 613 , that as the sample was purchased from licensed manufacturer, the petitioner could not know with reasonable diligence that the insecticide in any way contravened any provisions of the Act. The petitioner was 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.

Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 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 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."

In the instant case the petitioner did not know and could not have ascertained by due diligence regarding the insecticide in question being misbranded on account of its being deficient in the active ingredients in percentage as the same was purchased in the original packing as received from the manufacturer and was submitted for sale in the same condition and was not tampered with during this period when it remained on the shelf of the shop of the petitioner. The instant case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision rendered in Siri Ram Sat Pal''s case. The complaint and the consequential proceedings flowing therefrom are liable to be quashed as the continuance thereof will be an abuse of the process of the court.

Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the impugned complaint and the consequential proceedings flowing therefrom are hereby quashed.