Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Deepak Gupta, J.
Sunil Sethy - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-62101 of 2018
Decided On : 21-12-2023
Insecticides Act - Quashing of complaint - Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 - The court discussed the obligations and liabilities of a marketing firm under the Insecticides Act, emphasizing that a marketing firm cannot be held responsible for misbranding if the sample was drawn from a sealed container that was intact at the time of sampling. The court referred to various judicial pronouncements to support the view that only the manufacturer, not the seller, can be held liable for misbranding of insecticides. The judgment also highlighted the specific provisions of the Act and the lack of evidence to hold the petitioner responsible under the relevant sections.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the quashing of a complaint under the Insecticides Act, contending that as a marketing firm, he cannot be held responsible for the misbranding of insecticides when the sample was drawn from a sealed container manufactured by another company. The dealer and manufacturers had already been acquitted in a previous judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as a marketing firm, cannot be held responsible for the misbranding of insecticides when the sample was drawn from a sealed container manufactured by another company. The court also noted that the dealer and manufacturers had already been acquitted in a previous judgment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of a marketing firm under the Insecticides Act and whether the petitioner, as a marketing firm, could be held responsible for the misbranding of insecticides.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Insecticides Act and the lack of evidence to hold the petitioner responsible under the sections mentioned in the complaint.
Final Decision: The court quashed the complaint and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner, holding that it would be a futile exercise to continue the proceedings against the petitioner as the dealer and manufacturers had already been acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
By way of this petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, petitioner prays for quashing of complaint N: 280-I dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P1) under sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 [for short ‘the Act’] punishable under Section 29 of the Act read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 [for short ‘the Rules’]; order dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P2) passed by ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur and order dated 07.10.2013 (Annexure P7) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. (i) Contention of ld. counsel for the petitioner is that insecticide in question, the sample of which was drawn, was manufactured by M/s Agrimas Chemicals Ltd., whereas sample was drawn from the dealer M/s Sant Lal Tara Chand, Guruharshai, District Ferozepur. M/s Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., New Delhi had only marketed the insecticides in question, as is evident from the complaint (Annexure P1).
(ii) Ld. counsel contends that said marketing firm i.e., M/s Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. Was duly represented by Sh. V.K. Fotedar, who was nominated to be responsible for the conduct of the business. Besides, Rajnish Kumar was the Godown Incharge; whereas petitioner-Sunil Sethy, has been arrayed as an accused in the complaint being the Managing Director of the Company. It is argued that petitioner simply being the managing director of the marketing firm, cannot be held responsible, once another person had been nominated to be responsible for the business of the firm.
(iii) Ld. counsel further contends that in the complaint, as filed by the Insecticides Inspector, the dealer as well as the manufacturer faced trial and vide judgment dated 07.10.2016 (Annexure P3), they have already been acquitted by ld. CJM, Ferozepur.
(iv) Still further, it is contended that a marketing firm, cannot be held responsible under the Act, when the sample was drawn in packed condition, duly manufactured by a manufacturing firm, like in the present case. Ld. counsel has referred to a decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-21496-2019 titled Anil Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, decided on 07.05.2022.
3. Ld. State counsel, though could not refute the contention of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to the effect that dealer as well as manufacturer have already been acquitted by the trial Court concerned, vide judgment dated 07.10.2016 (Annexure P3), but contended that during proceedings, petitioner had been declared proclaimed person and that he cannot take benefit of the acquittal of the co-accused. Prayer is made for dismissing the petition.
4. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-21496-2019 titled Anil Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab decided on 07.05.2022, dealt with the similar question pertaining to the marketing firm. After referring to various provisions of the Act, it was held as under: -
17. It would be pertinent to make a reference to the relevant judicial pronouncements to appreciate the obligation and responsibility of a marketing agent and also his liability to be criminally prosecuted in the event that the sample in question is drawn out of a sealed container, that was intact at the time of sampling, is found to be misbranded after analysis. This court in the matter of Lochen Kheti Sewa Centre Vs. State of Punjab, 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 22 observed as under: -
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has very fairly stated that the petitioner is not the manufacturer. The sample was drawn from sealed packets and there is no material to indicate that it was properly stored. Under the circumstances the petitioner cannot be held liable for misbranding of the insecticide. Only the manufacturer, who is being proceeded against would be responsible.
18. Additionally, in the matter of Deepak Sharma Vs. State of Punjab 2008 (2), RCR (Criminal) 24, this court observed as under: -
2. The sample seized, on analysis, was found to be misbranded. The plea raised on behalf of the peti
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.
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
