S.D.ANAND,J. - (1.) THE facts apparent from the record are as under :- The petitioner is an authorized dealer of the relevant product. The public servant, who launched the impugned prosecution, had seized two samples out of a properly sealed tin containing that product. The samples failed the test at the laboratory.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the plea for exoneration from liability, relies upon a similar view taken by this Court in Deepak Sharma and others v. State of Punjab, 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 24. That case and the present case are akin in toto. The petitioners are not the manufacturers of the relevant product. They are licensed sellers thereof. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the impugned sample came to be seized out of a sealed tin lying on the premises of the petitioners' firm. Though the sample, on analysis, was found to be mis- branded, no liability on account thereof can be fastened upon the petitioners in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in M/s. Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v. Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur and another, 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 111. That ruling was relied upon by this Court as well in M/s. Vimal and Co., Grain Market, Mullanpur v. State of Punjab, 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 56.
(3.) IN the light thereof, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned prosecution (Complaint under Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of Insecticides Rules, 1971 titled as "State v. M/s Sona Kheti Store and others" pending in the Court of Shri Harsh Mehta - J.M.I.C., Amritsar) - Annexure P-1 shall stand quashed. Disposed of accordingly. Petition allowed.;