A seller cannot be prosecuted for a misbranded insecticide.

S.D.Anand, J.

1. The conceded facts are as under : The petitioners are not the manufacturer of the relevant insecticide. They are only licenced sellers. There also is no controversy that the impugned sample was seized from a sealed container lying on the premises of the firm.

2. The sample seized, on analysis, was found to be mis-branded. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is that a seller cannot be prosecuted. In support thereof, reliance is placed upon M/s. Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v. Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur and another, 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 111 and M/s. Vimal and Co., Grain Market, Mullanpur v. State of Punjab, 2002(2) RCR(Criminal) 56. The former judicial pronouncement was rendered by the Apex Court, while the latter was rendered by this Court. Both these judicial pronouncements are fully supportive of the advocated point of view. No law to the contrary was cited by the learned State counsel. In the light thereof, the impugned complaint under the Insecticides Act, 1968, and the summoning order dated 22.4.2005, passed in pursuance thereof, shall stand quashed. Disposed of accordingly.