Stockists, dealers, and distributors of insecticides are not liable for misbranding, and only the manufacturer would be liable, based on the Insecticides Act and previous case law.

Arvind Kumar, J.

1. The petitioners are seeking quashing of criminal complaint titled as State V/s. M/s. Guru Nanak Pesticides and Ors. (Annexure P3), pending before chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, under sections 3 (k) (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, in short) and Insecticides Rules, 1971 and consequent proceedings thereto.

2. The aforesaid complaint was filed against the petitioners and others with the allegations that on 19.2.2005 samples of monocrotophos 36%, manufactured by M/s hindustan Pulverlising Mills Ltd. Delhi from the containers were drawn from the premises of the petitioners. However, on analysis the sample was found misbranded. After completing the usual formalities, the complaint was filed, wherein the petition-crs were arrayed as accused therein being stockists and distributor/dealer of the aforesaid misbranded insecticide.

3. The quashing of the impugned complaint has been sought by the petitioners on the ground that the sample was never taken in accordance with the procedure prescribed and the mandatory provisions in drawing, preparing, storing and handling the sample has to be followed; the protection under Sec.30 (3) of the Act is available to the petitioners, who being the stockists and dealers, were selling the said insecticide in the original form as obtained from, the registered manufacturer; as such no prosecution can be launched against them.

4. In the reply filed on behalf of State although the quashing has been opposed, but it is not disputed that the sample was drawn from the original packing.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the paper-book carefully.

6. Petitioner No.1 is the stockist; petitioners No.2 and 3 are its partners while petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the distributor. They are not the manufacturer of the relevant insecticide. There is clear-cut plea in the petition that they were selling the insecticide in the sealed container in the original form as obtained from the manufacturer and the sample was also taken from the original packing. This plea has not been controverted by the State. Thus, there remains no controversy that the impugned sample was obtained from the sealed containers lying in tile premises of the firm and there is no material to indicate that the insecticide was not properly stored. Thus, the petitioners being the stockist / dealer / distributor, involved in the sale of insecticides, cannot be held liable for misbranding of the insecticides and only the manufacturer would be liable. In this context reliance can be placed on the cases of Mis Kisan Beej Bhandar, abohar V/s. Chief Agricultural Officers, ferozepur, 1990 CCC (Cri.)623. and Mls Vimal and Co. Grain market, Mullanpur V/s. State of Punjab2002 (2) RCR (Cri.) (Pandh ). followed in the case of Deepak Sharma and Ors. V/s. State of Punjab,2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 24and reliance can be safely placed on the case of Mis Punjab Beej bhandar Bela and Anr. V/s. State of Punjab, through Insecticide Inspector Ropar, 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 998 wherein also this Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the licensed dealer.

7. In view of discussion above, the petition is accordingly accepted and the impugned complaint and subsequent proceedings thereto, qua the petitioners, are quashed. Petition allowed.