Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
M/s Gagan Trading Co. and anr. - Petitioners - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent - Respondent
CRM-M-49611 of 2021 (O & M)
Decided On : 02-05-2023
Insecticide Act - Quashing of Criminal Complaint - Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 and Rule 10(4)(iii) of Insecticide Rules, 1971 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 30(3) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 and its interpretation in various judgments, emphasizing that distributors and dealers cannot be held liable for misbranding if the insecticide was received and sold in its original sealed condition.
Fact of the Case:
The Insecticide Inspector drew a sample of insecticide from the dealer's shop, which was found to be misbranded. The dealer and distributor were summoned to face trial for the alleged offences under the Insecticide Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the distributor and dealer could not be held liable for the misbranding as the sample was drawn from the original packing received by the distributor and sold in the same condition by the dealer.
Issues: The main issue was whether the distributor and dealer could be held liable for the misbranding of the insecticide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 30(3) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 in various judgments to conclude that distributors and dealers cannot be held liable for misbranding if the insecticide was received and sold in its original sealed condition.
Final Decision: The complaint, summoning order, and all subsequent proceedings were quashed for the distributor and dealer, as they could not be held liable for the misbranding of the insecticide.
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing Nos. CRM-M-49611-2021 filed by M/s Gagan Trading Company and another (Distributor) and CRM-M-51184-2021 filed by M/s Modern Kheti Store and others (Dealer).
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CRM-M-49611-2021 filed on behalf of M/s Gagan Trading Company and another.
3. The prayer in the present petitions is for the quashing of criminal complaint No.COMA-368/2021 dated 24.05.2021 under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 and Rule 10(4)(iii) of Insecticide Rules, 1971 punishable under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (Annexure P-4), the summoning order dated 23.08.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.08.2020, the Insecticide Inspector, Block Verka, District Amritsar, alongwith Sh. Balwinder Singh ADO (P.P.), District Headquarter, Amritsar inspected the shop of the dealer-M/s Modern Kheti Store, Amritsar (petitioner in CRM-M-51184-2021) and drew a sample of insecticide-Cartap Hydrochloride 4% G having Batch No.2007010, manufacturing date July 2020 and expiry date June 2020 manufactured by M/s Coromandel Agrico Pvt. Ltd., Buland Shehar. The sample was drawn from one sealed packet of 5 kg. packing.
5. Out of the two test samples, one of the sample was sent to the Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana for analysis on 13.08.2020 and the same was declared mis-branded as per the report dated 14.08.2020 since it contained only 2.51% active ingredients instead of 4.00%. Thereafter a copy of the analysis report alongwith show cause notice dated 26.08.2020 was served to the dealer-M/s Modern Kheti Store and they submitted their reply and produce a copy of the invoice No.289 dated 25.07.2020 vide which the insecticide was shown to have been purchased from M/s Gagan Trading Company (Distributors/petitioners in CRM-M-49611-2021).
6. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 08.09.2020 alongwith the analysis report was sent to M/s Gagan Trading Company. A detailed reply to the show cause notice was submitted alongwith a copy of the invoice dated 22.07.2020 vide which the insecticide in question had been shown to be purchased from M/s Coromandel Agrico Pvt. Ltd., Buland Shehar.
7. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 11.09.2020 alongwith a copy of the analysis report was issued to the manufacturing company i.e. M/s Coromandel Agrico Pvt. Ltd., Buland Shehar. The said manufacturing company submitted a reply and made a request to the chief Agriculture Officer, Amritsar for re-analysis of the reference sample by the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad as per the provisions of Section 24(3) and Section 24(4) of the Insecticide Act, 1968. However, the request for reanalysis was declined by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Amritsar.
8. On 18.09.2020, the dealer-M/s Modern Kheti Store filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar seeking reanalysis of the reference sample from the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad. This application was allowed on 18.11.2020 and the reference sample of Cartap Hydrochloride (4.00% G) was sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad vide letter dated 24.11.2020. The Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad again declared the sample as mis-branded. However, it was found that the sample contained 3.54% active ingredients instead of 4.00% G.
9. The copies of the re-analysis reports of the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad were sent to all the accused including the present petitioners alongwith show cause notices. Meanwhile, the licence of the dealer-M/s Modern Kheti Store was cancelled for mis-branding. However, in an appeal before the Joint Director, Agriculture (PP)-cum-Appellate Authority, Punjab, Mohali, the licence was restored by holding that the sample had been taken from an original packing and it
Distributors and dealers cannot be held liable for misbranding if the insecticide was received and sold in its original sealed condition.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the sample of insecticide is drawn from the original packing as supplied by the manufacturer to the dealer, the dealer cannot be held liabl....
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
