ORDER.— Crl.R.C. No. 290 of 1980 is filed by A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-7 in C.C. No. 335 of 1978, on the file of the Second Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Guntur. They were convicted for contravention of section 3(k)(i) read with section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the Act), and each was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 400. 2. Crl.R.C. No. 291 of 1980, is filed by A-8 to A-16 in the same case. They were similarly convicted. Since both these revisions are filed against a common judgment, I am also disposing them by a common order. 3. A-l is a firm. A-2, A-7 are its partners. A-6 died during the pendency of the case in the trial Court. A-8 is a firm. A-9 is its managing partner, and A-10 to A-16 are its partners. A-8 firm, manufactures and distributes insecticides to A-1 firm which is a dealer in insecticides at Guntur. On 4th November, 1977, the inspector of Insecticides, Guntur (P.W. 1) inspected A-1's shop when A-5 was present and found insecticides exposed for sale. He took samples of D.D.T. 10% dust and Endosulphan 4% dust. One sample was sent to the Insecticides Analyst at Hyderabad. He gave a report stating that Endosulphan was misbranded as the active ingredients present was 3.2% as against the guaranteed 4%. He found the D. D. T. sample within normal limits. At the time of taking the samples, the. Insecticides Inspector had also seized the Invoice (Exhibit P-11) and the Way bill (Exhibit P-12) produced by A-5. They show that A-1's firm purchased the insecticides, in question from A-8's firm. 4. The defence of A-1 to A-7 was that they had purchased the Insecticides from A-8's firm and they were protected under section 30 (3) of the Act. A-8 to A-16 denied the offence and stated that they did not misbrand the insecticides. 5. Rejecting their pleas and believing the prosecution evidence, particularly the report of the analyst, both the lower Courts have convicted the accused. 6. In this revision, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that A-1 to A-7 could not be convicted in view of section 30 (3) of the Act. That sub- section reads as follows: section 30 (3) “30 (3). 6. In this revision, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that A-1 to A-7 could not be convicted in view of section 30 (3) of the Act. That sub- section reads as follows: section 30 (3) “30 (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”. 7. Admittedly, A-1 is not an importer or a manufacturer of a insecticide. It is only a retail dealer. It is not also an agent of an importer or manufacturer for the distribution of an insecticide. It has produced the invoice (Exhibit P-11) and the way bill (Exhibit P-12), which show that it had purchased the insecticide in question on 25th October, 1977, from A-8's firm at Piduguralla. It is not disputed that A-8 is a licensed manufacturer. Therefore, the first condition is satisfied. In this case Endosulphan was misbranded. A-1 could not, with reasonable diligence, ascertain that it was misbranded. It purchased it on 25th October, 1977, and the inspection was made by the inspector of insecticides on 4th November, 1977. Further, the Inspector opened a fresh packet and took the sample. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the insecticide, while it was in A-1's possession was properly stored and remained in the same state is when it (A-1) acquired it. Thus all the three conditions of sub section (3) of section 30 of the Act, are satisfied in this case. If so, A-1 was not liable for contravention of any of the provisions of the Act. But the Courts below glossed over this aspect of the matter. Consequently I set aside the conviction of A-1 to A-5 and A-7. Fine, if paid, by them shall be refunded. Accordingly, Crl.R.C. No. 290 of 1980 is allowed. 8. If so, A-1 was not liable for contravention of any of the provisions of the Act. But the Courts below glossed over this aspect of the matter. Consequently I set aside the conviction of A-1 to A-5 and A-7. Fine, if paid, by them shall be refunded. Accordingly, Crl.R.C. No. 290 of 1980 is allowed. 8. A-8 to A-16 were convicted under section 3(k)(a) read with 29(1)(a) and rule 19(4) read with 29(3) of Insecticides Act, 1968 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 400 each. It is submitted by their learned Counsel that a copy of the Insecticides Analyst report was not served upon them and therefore they had no opportunity to send the, sample for analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory under section 24 of Insecticides Act, 1968. In this connection he relied upon section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and submitted that the decisions rendered with reference, to that section are equally applicable to the facts of this case. I am not able to agree with this contention. section 23 of the Act provides that— “Every person for the time being in charge of any premises where any insecticide is being manufactured or is kept for sale or distribution shall, on being required by an Insecticide Inspector so to do, be legally bound to disclose to the Insecticide Inspector the place where the insecticide is being manufactured of is kept, as the case may be”. Sub- section (2) of section 24 says: “The Insecticide Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and shall retain the other copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the sample”. Sub- section (2) of section 24 says: “The Insecticide Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and shall retain the other copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the sample”. Sub- section (4) of section 24 reads thus: “Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory, where a person has under sub- section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in contravention of the Insecticides Analyst's report, the Court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or of the accused, cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the Magistrate under sub- section (6) of section 22 to be sent for test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or under the authority of the Director of the Central Insecticides Laboratory the result thereof and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein”. Thus in view of section 24 of the, Act a copy of the report of the Insecticides Analyst should be delivered to a person from whom the sample was taken. It need not be delivered to a person from whom the sample was not taken. Under sub- section (4) of section 24 the accused can request the Magistrate to send the sample produced before the Court under sub- section (6) of section 22 for analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. Therefore, it is not as if, that an accused who is not served with a copy of the report under sub- section (2) of section 24 is precluded from having the sample tested or analysed with the Central Insecticides Laboratory. 9. The provisions of section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 are different. Therefore, it is not as if, that an accused who is not served with a copy of the report under sub- section (2) of section 24 is precluded from having the sample tested or analysed with the Central Insecticides Laboratory. 9. The provisions of section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 are different. It reads as follows: “On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub- section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14-A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the, Central Food Laboratory”. Section 14-A says that- “Every vendor of an article of food shall if so required, disclose to the Food Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he purchased the article of food”. Thus under sub- section (2) of section 13 , a copy of the report shall be sent not only to the person from whom the article of food was taken but also to the person whose name and address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14-A of the Act. But under sub- section (2) of section 24 of the Insecticides Act, a copy of the report should be delivered only to the person from whom the sample was taken but not to the person whose name was disclosed under section 23 of that Act. Consequently I hold that under the Act it is not necessary to furnish a copy of the Insecticides Analyst report to accused 8 to 16. Consequently I hold that under the Act it is not necessary to furnish a copy of the Insecticides Analyst report to accused 8 to 16. At the same time I consider that it is desirable that a copy of the report should be given even to those persons whose names are disclosed under section 23 of the Act, so that they will have an opportunity, if they so want, to send the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. 10. Next it is submitted that there is no proof that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance or is attributable to any neglect on the part of the accused 10 to 16, the Directors of the Company, within the meaning of sub- section (2) of section 33 and therefore their conviction is not valid. 11. Section 33 provides for offences by companies. It reads as follows: ”(1) Whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by a Company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was incharge of, or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub- section shall render any such person liable to any punishment under this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the Company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly”. 12. 12. Under sub- section (2) when an offence is committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director of the Company, then alone that director will also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and can be proceeded against and punished accordingly. A ‘director’ in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm. In this case A-10 to A-16 are partners. The prosecution did not place any evidence before the Court to show that the offence had been committed with their consent or connivance or is attributable to any neglect on their part. If so, their conviction has to be set aside. So far as the Firm, A-8 is concerned, it is liable under section 33 (1) of the Act. Equally A-9 the Managing Partner of the firm, is liable under sub- section (1) of section 33 because at the time the offence was committed, he was in charge of and was responsible for the Firm for the conduct of the business of the Firm. Consequently I confirm the conviction and sentences of A-8 and A-9 and set aside the conviction and sentences awarded to A-10 to A-16. Accordingly Criminal Revision Case No. 291 of 1980 is allowed, in part. If fine has been paid by A-10 to A-16, it shall be refunded to them. C.V.N.R. ----- Criminal revision allowed in part.