S.S.NIJJAR,J - (1.) THE petitioner is being prosecuted for having committed offences under Section 29(2) and 29(3) read with Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968.
(2.) A bare perusal of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa shows that the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad by its report dated 14.5.1993 has held that the insecticide was not misbranded. Therefore, the petitioner has rightly not been charged with the offence under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). However, he is being prosecuted for having committed offences under Sections 29(2) and (3) of the Act read with Rules 10(4)(i)(ii) and Rules 18 and 19 as well as Rules 16, 12 and 19 of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The offence under Rules 18 and 19 is sought to be made out on the ground that the leaflet was not found in the packing. Further he is being prosecuted under rule 19 on the ground that the labelling was improper. Even if the allegation in the complaint is accepted at the face value, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed these offences as it is no part of the duty of the retailer either to put necessary leaflet in the packing or to label the container of the insecticides. Admittedly, the samples had been taken from sealed containers. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. Similarly, the prosecution of the petitioner under rules 16, 12 and 19 is also not warranted as the petitioner has no role to play in labelling the insecticides. So far as rule 12 is concerned, the petitioner had been granted licence after satisfaction of the licensing authority. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 29(2) and 29(3) of the Act read with rules 12, 16, 18 and 19 cannot be sustained. Consequently, the petition is allowed to this extent. The proceedings against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences are hereby quashed. The trial court is at liberty to continue with the prosecution of the petitioner for violation of rules 10(4)(i)(ii). However, before parting with this order, it needs to be observed that even that offence is rendered only a technical offence, in view of the fact, that the petitioner has not committed any substantive offence. This fact may well be taken into account by the trial court whilst disposing of the matter.
(3.) IN view of the fact that the petitioner has been facing these criminal proceedings since the year 1992, the trial court is directed to dispose of the case within a period of four weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order. Disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of necessary charges. Petition allowed.;