JANDU MAL DESH RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Jandu Mal Desh Raj was a dealer in the sale of Insecticide and Pesticide appointed by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana through licence issued by him. On 8.7.1993, Sh. D.S. Malik, Insecticide Inspector visited the business premises of M/s. Jandu Mal Desh Raj with a view to seize sample of some insecticide or pesticide for having the same analysed from the analyst. At the time of raid, Shri Sushil Kumar proprietor of the business concern was present at the business premises. Anilophoz Ec was found stored in the shop for sale. After disclosing him his identity, expressing his intention to seize sample of Anilophoz 30 Ec, Sh. D.S. Malik, Inspector, Insecticide Inspector purchased Anilophoz 30 Ec. Sample taken was in sealed packing in original pack. Each sample part was put in polythene bag which was further put in cloth bag. Three samples were prepared. Sample slip was affixed on each bag. Sh. Ajmer Singh also signed each sample who was present at the spot. One sealed sample was sent to the Regional Quality Control Insecticide Laboratory, Chandigarh who found the sample mis-branded.

(2.) AFTER the receipt of the report of the analyst, complaint was instituted by the Quality Control Insecticide Inspector against M/s. Jandu Mal Desh Raj (dealer), Sushil Kumar proprietor of this business concern and manufacturer M/s. Montari Industries Ltd. and Rakesh viz., Manager Quality Control Montari Industries Ltd., District Ropar in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra under Section 29(1)(a) and section 17(1)(a) of the Insecticide Act, 1968.

(3.) IT is averred in this petition that sample when taken was in sealed packing in the original pack. Dealer supplied the same thing to the Insecticide Inspector for analysis which had been supplied to them by the manufacturer i.e. M/s. Montari Industries Ltd., its manufacturer. Product after it had been received by the dealer from the manufacturer was never tampered with nor there was any negligence on the part of the dealer in preserving the sample in the same state in which it had been supplied to them by the manufacturer. Complaint against the dealer is misconceived. In para 4 of the complaint, there is averment that the Insecticide Inspector had taken sample in sealed packing in original pack. If that was so, the dealer is protected by virtue of Section 30(3) of the Insecticide Act. Dealer could not have assured that the product was of the standard and was not misbranded. So far as standard of the product sold is concerned, that was known only to the manufacturer who was supposed to market it after test in their laboratories. Manufacturer was solely responsible for the quality of the product.