- (1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of complaint No. 67/2 of 24.2.2006 under Sections 3k (i), 17, 18 and 33 punishable under Section 29/1 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules 1971 (Annexure P-1) as well as summoning order dated 24.2.2006 (Annexure P-2) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that petitioner No. 1 is the dealer, who has obtained licence for sale of different types of insecticides/pesticides including that of M/s. United Phosphorus Ltd. D-21 New Focal Point, Dabwali Road, Bathinda. Petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor of petitioner No-1 firm. Petitioner No. 3 is the distributor and petitioner No. 4 is the proprietor of petitioner No. 3 M/s. Duni Chand Faquir Chand, Rama Mandi District Bhatinda. The shop of petitioner No. 1 was inspected by complainant Sandeep Kumar. Insecticides Inspector, Abohar on 4.9.2004. Sample was drawn from one litre packing of Triazophos 40% EC Batch No. AB3JOS4002 manufactured by M/s. United Phosphorus Ltd. D-21 New Focal Point, Dabwali Road, Bathinda. On the container the manufacturing date was mentioned as 11.1.2004 and the expiry date was mentioned as 10.1.2006. The sample was sent to the Insecticide Testing Laboratory and was found to be misbranded. The petitioners along with other accused have been summoned to face the trial vide order dated 24.2.2006 (Annexure P-2).
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners could not be held liable for any misbranding of the sample. The petitioners were dealers/distributors of the insecticide manufactured by M/s. United Phosphorus Ltd. D-21 New Focal Point, Dabwali Road, Bathinda. The insecticide was being sold by petitioner No. 1 in sealed containers in original form as obtained from the distributor, who had been supplied the insecticide by the manufacturer. The petitioners did not and could not have ascertained whether the insecticide in any way was being manufactured in contravention of any provision of the Act. The insecticide had been properly stored by the petitioners and had remained in the same state as and when they acquired it. There was no averment in the complaint that the insecticide had not been store by the petitioners in the proper state.
(3.) Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, (for short 'the Act') reads as under:- 30. Defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecutions under this Act.:- (3) A person not being an importer or a manufacturer of an insecticide or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for a contravention of any provision of this Act if he proves - (a) that he acquired the insecticide from an importer or a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof; (b) that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the insecticide in any way contravened any provision of this Act; and (c) that the insecticide, while in his possession, was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it. A perusal of Section 30(3) of the Act shows that the petitioners are entitled to the protection under the same, in case, the sample is taken from the sealed container and the seal had not been tampered with when the same was recovered from the shop. However, the protection would not be available to the dealer or distributor in case the insecticide has not been stored properly.;