2002 Supreme(P&H) 938
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.L.Singhal, J.
M/s. Sherpuria Sales Corporation
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Misc. No. 13530-M of 2000,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 18, 2002
The central legal point established is that a dealer is not liable for a misbranded insecticide if it was in sealed containers and sold in the same condition as received from the manufacturer, as per Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968.
Headnote:
Insecticides Act - Dealer's Liability - Section 30(3) - 3k(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971
Fact of the Case:
The Insecticide Inspector seized a sample of insecticide from a dealer's sale point for analysis. The sample was found to be misbranded, and a complaint was filed against the dealer under relevant sections of the Insecticides Act, 1968.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dealer was not liable for the misbranded insecticide as it was in sealed containers and sold in the same condition as received from the manufacturer, thus entitling the dealer to protection under Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968.
Issues: The main issue was whether the dealer could be held liable for the misbranded insecticide under the Insecticides Act, 1968.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments and Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 to conclude that the dealer was not answerable for the misbranded insecticide found at their sale point.
Final Decision: The complaint against the dealer was quashed, and all consequential proceedings were also set aside.
M.L.Singhal, J.
1. M/s. Sherpuria Sales Corporation, Railway Road, Rampura is dealer in the sale of insecticides manufactured by M/s. Sulphur Mills Limited, Bombay. M/s. Sherpuria Sales Corporation, Bathinda is its distributor. On 20.7.1998, Shri Hardev Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Rampura inspected the sale point of M/s. Sherpuria Sales Corporation, Rampura Phul with a view to seize the sample of Endosulphan 35% EC for its analysis by the Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Amritsar. At that time, Shri Jarnail Singh Dhaliwal, Soil Testing Officer was with him. At the time of inspection, at the sale point, Shri Arun Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Sherpuria Sales Corporation, Rampura Phul was found present. 19 litre Endosulphan 35% EC in one litre pack each was found lying displayed for sale to the public in the shop. Out of these 19 litre packs Shri Hardev Singh selected one pack of one litre, bearing batch No. 8D-227, date of manufacturing April, 1998 and expiry date March, 2000 manufactured by M/s. Sulphur Mills Limited, Mumbai. He purchased 750 ml. of Endosulphan 35% EC vide bill No. 003030 dated 20.7.1998 on payment of necessary price to Shri Arun Kumar. He divided 750 ml. of Endosulphan 35% EC into three equal parts and put each of the part in separate, clean and dry containers. Thereafter, they were wrapped in polythene bags and were then put in three separate clean and dry cloth bags alongwith form No. XXI. These three sample packets were sealed with the seal No. 11/9/BTI of Insecticide Inspector. One sealed sample containing form No. XXI was handed over to Shri Arun Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Sherpuria Sales Corporation, Railway Road, Rampura Phul. Two remaining sealed samples were deposited by Hardev Singh Insecticide Inspector in the office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Bathinda alongwith form No. XXI intact. The Chief Agricultural Officer, Bathinda sent one sealed sample intact alongwith form No. XXI to Senior Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Amritsar vide his office letter No. Enf. 137 dated 24.7.1998 through Shri Gurnam Singh Beldar in the office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Bathinda. Testing report received from Senior Analyst Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Amritsar showed that the sample was misbranded not conforming to IS specifications in the active ingredient contents. The active ingredients contents were found to be only 30.67% instead of 36% EC. After the receipt of analysis report, copy whereof was sent to Arun Kumar as well as to the manufacturer and to the distributor as the sample of Endosulphan 35% EC was found misbranded not conforming to IS specifications in the active ingredients contents by the Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Amritsar. Shri Hardev Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Rampura filed complaint under Sections 3k(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971.
2. Through this criminal miscellaneous filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dealer M/s. Sherpuria Sales Corporation through its proprietor Arun Kumar has prayed for the quashing of complaint Annexure P.1 and all others consequential proceedings taken in the complaint. It is stated that no case was made out against the "dealer" as the dealer was dealing in the sale of Endosulphan 35% EC as manufactured by this manufacturer in the same condition in which it had been received by M/s. Sherpuria Sales Corporation from its manufacturer. It is stated that at the time when the sample was taken by Insecticide Inspector, the Endosulphan 35% EC was in sealed packet. It is stated that dealer is entitled to the protection given in Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 .
3. Learned AAG for the State of Punjab on the other hand submits that it is for the dealer to prove that he was entitled to the protection of Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 . Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 reads as under :-
"(3) A person not being an importer or a manufacturer of an insecticide or hi