Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Ajai Lamba, J.
Lochen Kheti Sewa Centre, Behrampur Bet
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 44589 of 2006,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 29, 2006
Insecticide Act - Quashing of Complaint - The court allowed the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint under Insecticide Act, 1968, finding that the petitioner, who was not the manufacturer of the insecticide, cannot be held liable for misbranding of the insecticide as the sample was drawn from sealed packets and there was no material to indicate improper storage. Only the manufacturer would be responsible.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint under Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Insecticides Rules, 1971 Annexure P-1 and summoning order Annexure P-2.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, not being the manufacturer of the insecticide, cannot be held liable for misbranding of the insecticide and allowed the petition, quashing the complaint and summoning order against the petitioner.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner, who was not the manufacturer of the insecticide, could be held liable for misbranding of the insecticide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that as the sample was drawn from sealed packets and there was no material to indicate improper storage, only the manufacturer would be responsible for misbranding of the insecticide.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the complaint, summoning order, and proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
Ajai Lamba, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint under Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Insecticides Rules, 1971 Annexure P-1 and summoning order Annexure P-2.
2. In para 3 of the petitioner it is specifically pleaded that on 11.1.2005 a sample was drawn of an insecticide namely ALPHAMETHRIN 10% EC manufactured in June 2005 and expiry being in May 2006. The sample was drawn from three containers of 250 ml each which was sealed and packed from the premises of the petitioner firm. The said insecticide was manufactured by M/s. Singhal Presticide Industries, Muzaffarnagar. The petitioner had a licence for selling the insecticide and the insecticide was properly stored. On issue of notice of motion, reply has been filed. In reply to contents of para 3, the facts are stated to be correct and admitted.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has very fairly stated that the petitioner is not the manufacturer. The sample was drawn from sealed packets and there is no material to indicate that it was not properly stored. Under the circumstances the petitioner cannot be held liable for misbranding of the insecticide. Only the manufacturer, who is being proceeded against would be responsible. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed. The complaint Annexure P-1, summoning order Annexure P-2 and proceedings as against the petitioner only are quashed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
