(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C for short) for quashing of complaint No. 323/2 of 19.7.2007 under Sections 3k(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules 1971 (Annexure P-7) as well as summoning order dated 20.7.2007 (Annexure P-8) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the premises of the petitioners was inspected on 7.6.2005. Petitioners were having stock of 74 kgs (740 x 100 grams) Glyphosate 71% SG (Mera-71) in 100 grams packing . The insecticide was manufactured by M/s Excel Crop Care Limited, Mumbai and the petitioners were authorised to sell/ stock the said insecticide. The samples were drawn from three originally sealed containers of 100 grams packing. However, as per the report of the Central Insecticide Laboratory, the sample did not conform to the relevant ISI specifications in respect of active ingredient requirement and was hence, found to be misbranded. Petitioners along with other accused were summoned to face the trial vide order dated 20.7.2007 (Annexure P-8).
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners could not be held liable for any misbranding of the sample. The petitioners were dealers/ distributors of the insecticide manufactured by M/s Excel Crop Care Limited, Mumbai. The insecticide was being sold by the petitioners in sealed containers in original form as obtained from the distributor, who had been supplied the insecticide by the manufacturer. The petitioners did not and could not have ascertained whether the insecticide in any way was being manufactured in contravention of any provision of the Act. The insecticide had been properly stored by the petitioners and had remained in the same state as and when they acquired it. There was no averment in the complaint that the insecticide had not been stored by the petitioners in the proper state.