Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.
Rallis India Limited & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab Thro Insecticide Inspector – Respondent
CRM-M-20338-2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 20-04-2022
Insecticides Act - Marketing Agency's Responsibility - Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 - The court considered whether a marketing agency/licensed dealer can be held responsible for the contents of the samples under the Insecticides Act, 1968, when the seal of the sample was intact at the time of sampling. The judgment discusses the obligations and liability of a marketing agent and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions in reaching the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The State filed a complaint against various persons, including the petitioners, for offences under the Insecticides Act, 1968. The petitioners, a marketing firm, were accused of selling misbranded insecticide. The samples were drawn from a sealed container, and the petitioners were not involved in the manufacturing process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners, as a marketing firm, cannot be held responsible for the alleged deficiency in the active ingredients of a sample or be held accountable for misbranding. The court quashed the complaint and subsequent proceedings against the petitioners.
Issues: The main issue was whether the marketing firm could be held liable for offences under the Insecticides Act, 1968, for selling misbranded insecticide when the samples were drawn from a sealed container and the petitioners were not involved in the manufacturing process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments to establish that a marketing firm cannot be held responsible for misbranding when the samples were drawn from sealed containers and the firm was not involved in the manufacturing process. The court also emphasized that the statutory mandate intends to penalize a person who has committed an offence, not those who are merely dealing with the product.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint and subsequent proceedings against the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. - The question which arises for consideration in the instant petition is as to whether a marketing agency/licensed dealer can be held responsible under the Insecticides Act, 1968, for the contents of the samples when it is not disputed that the seal of the sample was intact at the time of sampling ?
2. The present petition has been filed under section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.18 of 11.07.2016 (Annexure P-1) titled as 'State Versus M/s Goyal Sales Corporation and Others' pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sri Muktsar Sahib for offences under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Section 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 as well as the subsequent proceedings including the order of summoning dated 11.07.2016 (Annexure P-2).
FACTS:
3. Complaint No.18 dated 11.07.2016 titled as 'State Versus M/s Goyal Sales Corporation and Others was filed by the State against various persons, who were claimed to be the dealer, supplier, distributor and manufacturer under the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The petitioners in the instant petition happen to be accused No.5 and 6 in the said complaint.
4. It is alleged that on 29th July 2013 at about 12:45 p.m., the complainant-Insecticide Inspector inspected the shop M/s Goyal Sales Corporation, Mandi Bariwala, Sri Muktsar Sahib and checked the stock register of the firm and found 40x5 kg cartap hydrochloride 4% G (brand name cartox 4G) in the stock of the firm. The complainant checked the licence of the firm and selected one pack weighing 5 KG bearing Batch No.1305049 with a manufacturing date May 2013 and expiry date April 2015, which was manufactured by M/s Agrimas Chemical Limited Skindrabad and marketed by M/s Rallis India Limited Mumbai. The relevant extract of para four is reproduced as under:-
4. That in exercising the Powers conferred upon me vide above referred Govt. Notification, 1 Gurpreet Singh Insecticide Inspector, Sri Muktsar Sahib in performance of my official duties inspect the Shop M/S Goyal Sales Corporation, Mandi Bariwala, Si Muktsar Sahib on dated 29/07/2013 at about, 12:45 p.m. along, with Sh. Mukhtiar Singh, Agriculture Development Officer (DW), (Sri Muktsar Sahib). I, introduced myself as Insecticide Inspector Sri Muktsar Sahib to Sh. Vijay Kumar S/O Sh. Kewal Krishan, Proprietor and Responsible Person of the firm M/S Goyal Sales Corporation, Mandi Bariwala, Sri Muktsar Sahib who was present at the shop on the time of inspection. I checked the stock register of the firm and found 40X5kg cartap hydrochloride 4% G (brand name cartox 4G) in the stock of the firm (Annexure-D). I checked the License of the firm and selected One Pack weighing 5kg bearing Batch No. 1305049 manufacturing date May-2013 and expiry date April-2015, which was manufactured by M/S Agrimas Chemical Ltd. Skindrabad and marketed by M/s Rallís India Ltd, Mumbai.
5. Out of the pack selected for sampling, 750 grams material was drawn and divided into three portions having approximately 250 grams each and samples were then sealed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Insecticides Act 1968 and the Rules of 1971. The consent of the dealer was taken before taking the samples and he was called upon to sign the relevant forms, to which he expressed his inability. Even the independent witnesses refused to associate themselves with the same. Resultantly, Agriculture Development Officer signed form No.XX as witness. The sample was purchased vide bill No.86 dated 29th July, 2013 for Rs.60. The said samples were accordingly deposited in the office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Sri Muktsar Sahib along with Form No.XX and Form No.XXI in intact position. One sealed sample and one sealed Form No.XXI was sent by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Sri Muktsar Sahib to the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Bathinda vide letter No.236 dated 05.08.2013 and against proper receipt and the same was
AI
A marketing firm cannot be held responsible for misbranding under the Insecticides Act, 1968, when the samples were drawn from sealed containers and the firm was not involved in the manufacturing pro....
Dealers cannot be held responsible for misbranding under the Insecticides Act when the samples were drawn from sealed containers and there was no evidence of tampering.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a marketing firm cannot be held responsible for the misbranding of insecticides when the sample was drawn from a sealed container manufactured....
Distributors and dealers cannot be held liable for misbranding if the insecticide was received and sold in its original sealed condition.
A retailer or marketing firm is not liable for misbranding if the insecticide was sold in sealed packaging and there is no evidence of their knowledge regarding the misbranding.
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
