JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE Vs. SAI AGENICES NAMBUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is preferred by the State represented by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur in C.C.No.223 of 1996 on the file of the VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur.

(2.) The Joint Director of Agriculture filed a case against the accused for the offence under Section 29 (1) (a) read with 3 (k) (i) & (viii) of the Insecticides Act, 1958. According to the prosecution A-1 is the Dealer, A-2 is the Distributor, A-3 is the Managing Partner, A-4 is the Manufacturing Firm and A-5 is the Quality Controller of A-4 Firm. On 16-09- 1995, PW-1, the then Agricultural Officer (T&V), Pedakakani, who is an Insecticides Officer under the Act, on credible information that A-1 is conducting business in insecticides without valid licence required to be obtained under Clause 13 (1) (A) of the Act, inspected the business premises of A-1 and found 8 items of insecticides kept in the room. PW-1 sealed the room under the cover of mediatornama for want of sufficient lighting to draw the samples. He again visited the said premises on 18-09-1995, opened the sealed rooms and seized the stock manufactured by A-4 and distributed through A-2. The Agriculture Officer had drawn the samples as per the procedure prescribed under the Rules under a cover of panchanama. Samples were delivered to A-1, to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, to the Public Analyst, to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur and to the Director of Agriculture, A.P., Hyderabad for storage purpose. The sample sent to the analyst was analyzed and the analyst sent a report on 15-11-1995 through his letter, dated 13-11-1995 opining that the sample Phorate 10% G was misbranded, since the content of the sample is only 7.39% against 10%. The said product was manufactured by A-4 under batch No.170 and its date of expiry is January, 1997. The said product was distributed by A-2 and it was purchased by A-1. The Analyst report was served on A-1, A-2 and A-4 on 01-12-1995, 22-11-1995 and 16-11-1995 respectively and a show cause notice was issued calling for their explanations. A-1, A-2 and A-4 requested for reanalysis and accordingly, the reference sample was sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory and they also found that the sample was misbranded since the contents of the same is 6.01% as against 10%. The report of the central laboratory was served on the accused. A-1 is responsible for stocking the insecticides without valid licence and selling the misbranded stock of Phorate 10% G. A-2 and A-3 are liable for distributing the same and A-4 and A-5 are liable for the manufacturing the said insecticide. After obtaining permission from the District Magistrate, Guntur to prosecute the Accused, a complaint was filed. The accused are, therefore, liable for punishment under Sections 29 (1) (a) of the Act for contravention of Section 3 (K) (i) (viii) of the Act. The Accused pleaded not guilty of the offence and claimed for trial.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-16. The accused examined DWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.D-1 to D-6. After conclusion of the trial, the lower Court acquitted the accused finding them not guilty of the offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the State preferred the present Appeal by contending that the lower Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly, though there is sufficient material to show that the insecticide was misbranded, therefore, the Judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside by convicting the accused for the said offence.