SIDHU BROTHERS STORE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition, petitioner has prayed that the complaint, Annexure P/1 dated 12.9.1997 under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (in short the Act) read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 be quashed.

(2.) IT is cas of the petitioner that he was a retail dealer and had purchased Weedicide called 2, Ethyl Ester 36% EC. from its manufacturer namely M/s Herbicide India Limited. He had kept the product in a proper condition, as it was originally sealed. It is apparent from the records that on 2.1.1997, Harminder Singh, complainant, Insecticide Inspector, Mallanwala, Block Zira visited the shop of the petitioner and had drawn three samples of above named Weedicide. It is apparent from complaint, Annexure P/1 that three sealed containers of Weedicide, each measuring 1000 ml (1 litre) were taken as sample. It is also apparent from form XX, Annexure P/4 that the drawn samples were in its original packing. On analysis, samples were found to be mis-branded. Counsel for the petitioner contended that he had purchased the substance, in dispute, from a licensed manufacturer and he could not now (know ?) that the substance contravened any of the provisions of the Act. It has further been contended that the Weedicide/Insecticide, while in his possession, was properly stored and remained in the same state as of when same was purchased from the manufacturer.

(3.) TO support has contention, counsel has relied upon three judgments of this Court in M/s Delhi Agriculture Store, Lohian Khas v. State of Punjab, 1997(1) Recent Criminal Reports 42, M/s Rajindra Prasad v. State of Haryana, 1998(1) Recent Criminal Reports 163 and Hardit Singh v. Union of India, 1998(4) Recent Criminal Reports 865. Counsel prays that complaint qua him be quashed.