Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.
M/s. Mohinder Kumar Heshane Kumar And Anr – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab Through Insecticide Inspector – Respondent
CRM-M-10196-2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 28-04-2022
Insecticides Act - Responsibility of Dealers - Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 - The court held that the petitioners, as dealers, cannot be held responsible for misbranding of insecticides when the samples were drawn from sealed containers and there was no evidence of tampering. The court referred to previous judgments to support the dealer's lack of liability in such cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, engaged in the retail sale of insecticides, were accused of misbranding under the Insecticides Act, 1968. The complaint was filed after a surprise inspection in 2009, alleging that the insecticide samples were misbranded. The petitioners sought quashing of the complaint on the grounds that they were not responsible for the quality of the product and that the complaint was time-barred.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners, as dealers, cannot be held responsible for misbranding when the samples were drawn from sealed containers and there was no evidence of tampering. The court also noted that the complaint was time-barred under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.
Issues: The issues involved whether the petitioners, as dealers, could be held responsible for misbranding under the Insecticides Act, and whether the complaint was time-barred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments to establish that dealers cannot be held responsible for misbranding when the samples were drawn from sealed containers and there was no evidence of tampering. The court also applied Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. to determine that the complaint was time-barred.
Final Decision: The court quashed the complaint and subsequent proceedings against the petitioners, holding that they cannot be held responsible for misbranding and that the complaint was time-barred.
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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.COMA-259 of 2018 (wrongly mentioned as filing No.COMA/1016/2018 in the head note of the petition), File No.178 dated 25.05.2018 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 3k(i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rule 27 (5) of Insecticide Rules, 1971 titled as 'Punjab State Versus M/s Mohinder Kumar Heshane Kumar and Others' pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo as well as the subsequent proceedings including the order of summoning dated 25.05.2018 (Annexure P-4) being an abuse of the process of law and barred by limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') and hit by Section 30(3) of The Insecticides Act, 1968.
FACTS:
3. The brief facts of the case as they emanate from the perusal of the petition are to the effect that the petitioner no.1 is the sole proprietorship firm of petitioner No.2 and the petitioners are engaged in the business of retail sale of various kinds of insecticides etc. used for common agricultural purposes. It is contended that on 24.09.2009, the respondent/complainant conducted a surprise inspection at the business premises of the petitioners and during the said inspection no irregularity was found with regard to the records of the petitioners or their licence to sell the insecticides. It is pointed out that the petitioners were holding a valid licence for selling insecticides which was valid till 31.12.2009.
4. It is alleged that the Insecticide Inspector tried to join the independent witnesses but nobody expressed his willingness, whereafter the officer found 4 X 1 litre Endosulfan, details of which are extracted as herein below:
4. I found 4 X 1 Litre Endosulfan 35% E.C. Bearing Batch No.060APS21, Date of manufacture April 2009 and Expiry March 2011 which was in one litre packing supplied by M/s Anu Products Ltd. Ludhiana and was displayed for sale. Out of total stock of medicine of 4 X 1 Litre, I selected one litre pack for sample and purchased 750 ml. Endosulfan 35% EC vide Bill No.26/58 dated 24.09.2009 (Copy Enclosed). Remaining medicines was returned to the shopkeeper after sealing. (Annexure C-5)
5. That before taking sample, consent was obtained from Shri Mohinder Kumar son of Uttam Chand, M/s Mohinder Kumar Heshane Kumar, Raman Mandi, Form XX (4) and XXI (6) were prepared and Shri Mohinder Kumar son of Uttam Chand, M/s Mohinder Kumar Heshane Kumar, Raman Mandi signed form XX and Shri Surjit Singh, Agriculture Sub Inspector also signed form XX as witness. One form No.XX handed over to Shri Mohinder Kumar. (Annexure C-6 and C-7)
******
8. That the test report from Senior Analyst, Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana was received in the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda vide forward Letter No.TA/297 date 19.10.2009. (Copy enclosed). (Annexure P-10). Sample was declared misbranded because it was not found proper as per the ISI specifications and concentration was 28.23% instead of 35% EC (Copy enclosed).
****
10. That as per the provisions of Insecticides Act, on the request of dealer (Original enclosed Annexure C-13) reference sample was sent for retesting to the Central Insecticide Lab, Faridabad vide Letter No.8016 dated 17.12.2009 of Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda through Shri Jagjit Singh Beldar, Bathinda. (Annexure C-14). Which was declared misbranded by Central Insecticide Lab, Faridabad because in this, concentration was found 28.57% EC instead of 35% EC which does not comply with the ISI specifications. (Copy enclose
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.
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....
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
