The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 30(3) of the Insecticide Act, 1968, which provides protection to persons not being importers or manufacturers of insecticides from liability for contravention of the Act under certain conditions.

Rajan Gupta, J. (oral)

1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint instituted under Section 27 (5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 for violation of Section 3 (k) (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 and rules, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Brief factual background of the case is that Gurmit Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Patiala alongwith Jagdish Singh Sandhu, Agriculture Development Officer, Patiala inspected the shop of petitioner No.1 on 31st May, 2003 and found 90 litres of Butachlor 50% EC of one litre packing and 50 litres of Endosulfan 35% EC of 5 litres packing and drew the samples of Butachlor 50% and Endosulfan 35% out of the original packing which was manufactured by M/s Chemical Corporation of India, Delhi. After drawing the samples, one part thereof was given to the petitioner and two parts were retained by the Inspector. The sample, which was retained by the Inspector was sent to the Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana where the same was found to be misbranded. On the basis of the report received, the instant complaint dated 27th July, 2007 was lodged in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala whereafter the petitioner along with co-accused was summoned to face trial.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since the sample was drawn from the original packing as received from the manufacturer, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 30 (3) of the Act. According to learned counsel in such an eventuality, liability if any, is of the manufacturer and not of the dealer. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on a judgment of the apex court reported as M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar Vs. Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur and another, 1990 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 623.

4. Learned State counsel does not dispute the fact that the instant case is covered by the ratio of M/s Kishan Beej Bhandar's case (supra). He has, however, contended that the entire matter can be gone into by the trial court after evidence is led by the parties.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Section 30 (3) of the Act is extracted below for ready reference. The same reads thus:

“(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.”

7. In the instant case, a perusal of Form XX (Annexure P-2) in respect of sample of Butachlor, shows that the sample was in fact drawn from the original packing. The original packing was being kept by the dealer in his premises. When sample was drawn, it was stated in column no.5 of aforesaid Form “Loose sample from Company Packing”. Similarly, in the sample of Endosulfan taken by the Insecticide Inspector in Form-XX (Annexure P-3), it was clearly mentioned that loose samples had been taken from the company packing. In view of these documents, which are on record, it is clear that the samples in question was taken by the Insecticide Inspector from the original packing as given by the manufacturer. In M/s Kishan Beej Bhandar's case (supra), the apex court while allowing a similar plea observed as under:-

“4. The High Court took the view that by enacting subsection (1) of Section 30 of the Act, Parliament had taken out the element of mens rea from consideration and, therefore, knowledge was not at all material. Appellant's counsel has argued that protection of su