GARG AGRO CHEMICALS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint instituted under Section 27 (5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 for violation of Section 3 (k) (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 and rules, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Brief factual background of the case is that Gurmit Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Patiala alongwith Jagdish Singh Sandhu, Agriculture Development Officer, Patiala inspected the shop of petitioner No. 1 on 31st May, 2003 and found 90 litres of Butachlor 50% EC of one litre packing and 50 litres of Endosulfan 35% EC of 5 litres packing and drew the samples of Butachlor 50% and Endosulfan 35% out of the original packing which was manufactured by M/s Chemical Corporation of India, Delhi. After drawing the samples, one part thereof was given to the petitioner and two parts were retained by the Inspector. The sample, which was retained by the Inspector was sent to the Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana where the same was found to be misbranded. On the basis of the report received, the instant complaint dated 27th July, 2007 was lodged in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala where after the petitioner along with co-accused was summoned to face trial.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since the sample was drawn from the original packing as received from the manufacturer, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 30 (3) of the Act. According to learned counsel in such an eventuality, liability if any, is of the manufacturer and not of the dealer. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on a judgment of the apex court reported as M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v. Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur and another, 1990 SCC(Cri) 623.