The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of dealers and distributors under the Insecticides Act, particularly the defenses available to them under Section 30(3) and the importance of proper storage of insecticides.

Sabina, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint No. 97/3 of 3.6.2005 under Sections 3k(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticides Rules 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules 1971 titled State v. M/s. Jindal Fertilizers and Chemicals and other pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Khanna and for quashing all the consequential proceedings arising out of the said complaint.

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that petitioner No. 1 is the dealer, who has obtained licence for sale of different types of insecticides/pesticides including that of M/s. Coromandal Agrico Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor of petitioner No. 1 firm. Petitioner No. 3 is the distributor and petition No. 4 is the proprietor of petitioner No. 3 M/s. Manro Machinery Corporation. The shop of petitioner No. 1 was inspected by complainant Ajit Singh, Insecticides Inspector, Khanna on 18.3.2003. Sample of Cartap Hydochloride 4% "Padan" was taken frorn 1 kg packing sealed container. The insecticide was having manufacturing date as April 2003 and expirty date as March 2005. Batch number of the insecticide was 0304031, manufactured by M/s. Coromandal Agrico Pvt. Ltd. and distributed by petitioner No. 3. The sample was sent to the Insecticide Testing Laboratory and was found to be misbranded. On the basis of the report, the present complaint dated 3.6.2005 was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Khanna. The petitioners along with other accused were order to be summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Khanna. In pursuance to the summoning order, the petitioners have appeared before the trial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners could not be held liable for any misbranding of the sample. The petitioners were dealers/distributors of the insecticide manufactured by M/s. Coromandal Agrico Pvt. Ltd. The insecticide was being sold by petition No. 1 in sealed containers in original form as obtained from the distributor, who had been supplied the insecticide by the manufacturer. The petitioner did not and could not have ascertained whether the insecticide in any way was being manufactured in contravention of any provision of the Act. The insecticide had been properly stored by the petitioners and had remained in the same state as and when they acquired it. There was no averment in the complaint that the insecticide had not been stored by the petitioners in the proper state. Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 , (for short `the Act) reads as under :-

"30. Defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecutions under this Act.- (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."

4. A perusal of Section 30(3) of the Act shows that the petitioners are entitled to the protection under the same, in case, the sample is taken from the sealed container and the seal had not been tampered with when the same was recovered from the shop. However, the protection would not be available to be the dealer or distributor in case the insecticide has not been stored property.

5. In reply filed by the State of Punjab, it has been admitted the petitioner No. 3 was holding insecticide licence bearing No. 132/79, which was valid up to 31.12.2004 when he had distributed the insecticides. Petitioner No. 1 was authorised to sell/stock/distribute insecticides of the manufacturing company M/