ALIWAL KHAD STORE, ALIWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of complaint dated 18.1.1994, Annexure P -3 under Sections 3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, and for quashing all consequential proceedings thereof.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 is a dealer while petitioner No.2 is distributor. Petitioner No. 1 who is a licensee under the Insecticides Act (licence issued by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur) deals in selling, stocking and exhibiting for sale different types of pesticides. As per allegations made in the complaint, Insecticides Inspector, Kala Afgana inspected the shop of petitioner No. 1 on 18.12.1992 and took sample by purchasing three sealed tins of 2, 4 -D, Ethyl Easter 34% EC (cutout) Batch No. SR -157 which was manufactured by Jail Shri Industries Private Limited. One Sample was sent to the Insecticides Quality Control, Laboratory, Amritsar and the same was found misbranded. On the basis of report of the Analyst, complaint in question has been filed against the retailer, distributor and the manufacturer, but the present petition is only on behalf of the retailer and the distributor. Acting on the basis of report of the Senior Analyst, the Chief Agricultural Officer vide order dated 23.4.1993 cancelled the licence of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 filed an appeal before the Deputy Director (ICPP) Punjab Chandigarh, exercising the powers of appellate Authority under the Act. In the appeal, the appellate Authority restored the licence which was cancelled by the Chief Agricultural Officer by holding "After going through the entire case, I have come to the conclusion that the appellant cannot be found at fault as he has stored the insecticide properly and sold in the sealed container and the same was found misbranded by the Insecticide Testing Laboratory. Keeping in view the circumstances and findings, no fault lies with the appellant. I order for the restoration of the licence which was cancelled by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur vide order No. 3602 dated 23.4.1993 and direct the Chief Agri. Officer, Gurdaspur to take necessary action." Quashing of the complaint has been sought on the ground that the order vide which the licence of the petitioner was cancelled, has been set aside by the Deputy Director exercising the powers of appellate Authority under Section 15 of the Insecticides Act. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the complaint is liable to be quashed as the finding qua petitioner No. 1 with regard to misbranding of sample has been set aside. He also contended that the distributor has also not been found responsible for misbranding of the insecticides. As per counsel, fault lies with the manufacturer. Respondent in the written statement has admitted decision dated 8.7.1993 regarding restoration of insecticides licence. I find from a reading of the order that the appellate Authority after scrutiny of the case came to the conclusion that the failure of the sample being sub -standard/misbranded was not on account of fault of the dealer. The product was distributed by petitioner No. 2 in sealed cover and was sold by petitioner No. 1 in the same condition. Both the petitioners had no hand in manufacturing the product. Thus, I am of the view that the complaint, Annexure P -3 qua the petitioners is liable to be quashed.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , this petition is allowed. Complaint dated 18.1.1994, Annexure P -3 and the proceedings initiated thereon shall stand quashed. Petition allowed.