WADHAWA BEEJ BHANDAR PIPLI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Misc. No. 8975-M of 1997 has been filed by M/s. Wadhawa Beej Bhandar and others through its proprietor Shri Sushil Kumar and others (petitioners) under Section 482, Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby it has been prayed that complaint annexure P/1 filed under Sections 29(1)(a) read with Section 3(k)(1) and Section 17(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 be quashed qua them so as to put a stop to the abuse of the process of Court.

(2.) It is averred that on 24-12-1992 Assistant plant Protection Officer (G) O/O Deputy Director of Agriculture, Kurukshetra visited the business premises of firm M/s. Wadhawa Beej Bhandar, Pipli and drew a sample of 2-4-D Ethyle Estor 34% EC Batch No. 18 under the provisions of Section 21(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 manufactured by accused No. 5 M/s. Heema Pesticides Baraut. The sample was drawn according to the procedure laid down in the Act. At the time of raid, Sushil Kumar was allegedly found present at the business premises of the firm. Three packing of 500 miligram each 2-4-D Ethyle Estor 34% EC-B-No. 18 were taken for sampling. These packing containers were put in the separate polythene bags which were made into sealed parcels with the seal of Insecticides Inspector. Sushil Kumar was allegedly asked to affix his own seal of the cloth bag but he refused to do so. According to the Insecticides Inspector, three parts of sample were prepared and one part was given to Sushil Kumar and the other sample part was sent to the State Quality Control Insecticides Laboratory, Karnal vide DDA letter no. 12311 dated 28-12-92. According to the prosecution, sample was declared misbranded by the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Insecticides, Lab. Karnal. Copy of analysis report was sent to the dealer M/s. Wadhawa Beej Bhandar Pipli under the provisions of Section 24(2) of Insecticides Act, 1968 by the Assistant Plant Protection Officer office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra vide letter No. 18 dated 10-2-1993 and information was sent to M/s. Heema Pesticides vide letter No. 19 dated 10-2-93, regarding sample having been found misbranded by the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Insecticides Lab., Karnal.

(3.) It is averred by the petitioner that if at all M/s. Heema Pesticides, Baraut manufacturer of this insecticide is liable for having manufactured misbranded insecticide. Neither M/s. Wadhawa Beej Bhandar (Dealer) nor M/s. Pawan and Co. (Distributor) of this insecticide is liable, in view of provisions of Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, as when the sample is taken from a sealed packing manufactured by manufacturer and kept by the dealer/distributor in the same state in which it had been obtained from the manufacturer, the manufacturer is liable and not dealer or distributor thereof.