- (1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C for short) for quashing of criminal complaint No. 171/10 dated 19.8.2010 under Sections 3k(i), 17, 18 and 33 punishable under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short the Act) read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules 1971 (Annexure P-4) as well as summoning order dated 23.8.2010 (Annexure P-5) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) The case of the complaint, in brief, is that on 13.6.2007, he had checked the premises of the M/s Manohar Lal and Company Verowal Road, Jandiala Guru District Amritsar along with other officials. Varinder Kumar, sole proprietor of the firm was present there. In the said premises, Butaclor 50% EC in 5 liter packing, brand name Butafex had been kept for sale. On each packing Batch No. USX-22 with manufacturing date May 2007 and expiry date April 2009 was mentioned. It was further mentioned on the packing that the insecticide had been manufactured by M/s Safex Chemicals India Ltd. Plot No. 22, IID Battal Ballian Udhampur (J&K). Sample of 750 ml was drawn out of the 5 liter packing and the same was sent for chemical analysis. The analyst vide his report opined that the sample contained 33.17% active ingredient contents of Butachlor against 50% as labeled on the container from which the sample was drawn. The sample did not conform to its I.S. specifications with respect to its percentage of active ingredient contents and hence it was misbranded. The petitioners along with manufacturer were ordered to be summoned to face the trial.
(3.) 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 of the insecticide manufactured by M/s Safex Chemicals India Ltd. Plot No.22, IID Battal Ballian Udhampur (J&K). The insecticide was being sold by the petitioners in sealed containers in original form after it was purchased from 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 stored by the petitioners in the proper state.;