SIVARAMA SASTRY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. R.C. No. 290 of 1980 is filed by A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-7 in C.C. No. 335/1978 on the file of the Second Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. They were convicted for contravention of Sec. 3 (k) (i) read with Sec. 29 (1) (a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the Act), and each was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 400/.

(2.) Crl. R.C. No. 291/1980 is fited by A-8 to A-16 in the same case. They were similarly convicted. Since both these revisions are filed against a common judgment, I am also disposing them by a common order.

(3.) A-1 is a firm, A-2 to A-7 are its partners. A-6 died during the pendency of the case in the trial court. A-8 is a firm. A-9 is its managing partner, and A-10 to A-16 are its partners. A-8 firm, manufacturers and distributes insecticides to A-1 firm which is a dealer in insecticides at Guntur. On 4-11-77, the Inspector of Insecticides, Guntnr (P.W. 1) inspected A-1's shop when A-5 was present and found Insecticides exposed for sale. He took samples of D.D.T. 10 percent dust and Endosulphan 4 percent dust. One sample was sent to the Insecticides' Analyst at Hyderabad. He gave a report stating that Endosulphan was misbranded as the active ingredients present was 3. 2 percent as against the guaranteed 4 percent. Hs found the D.D.T. sample within normal limits. At the time of taking the samples, the Insecticides Inspector had also seized the Invoice (Ex. P-11) and the Way bill (Ex: P-12) produced by A-5. They show that A-1's firm purchased the Insecticides in question from A-8's firm,