Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1686 (PNJ)

Garg Traders v. State Of Punjab

2008-09-30

AJAI LAMBA

body2008
Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing of complaint No. 254 dated 6.6.2008 under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 titled State v. M/s Garg Traders and others, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur (Annexure P-l). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner firm is a licensee under the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short the Act) to deal with various kinds of insecticides and pesticides of registered and approved manufacturing companies, approved by the Government of India as well as Government of Punjab. A sample of insecticide was drawn from a sealed packing. The insecticide at issue has been manufactured by a registered and approved company. The fact that the sample was taken from a sealed packing is evident from the seizure memo (Annexure P-3). A specific pleading in this regard has been made. No offence under the Act can be said to have been committed by the petitioner as it could not have been reasonably deduced that the insecticide was misbranded. Continuance of proceedings would not serve any purpose other than harassment of the petitioner, who is a businessman. Protection is provided under Section 30 sub-Section (3) of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not disputed the facts, as stated. I have considered the issue involved. Paras 2 and 3 of the petition read as under ;- "2. That the petitioner-firm is licensee under Insecticides Act, 1968 to deal in various kinds of insecticides and pesticides of registered and approved manufacturing companies by Govt, of India as well as by Govt, of Punjab. The petitioner-firm sells only sealed and packed insecticides/pesticides as packed by registered manufacturing companies, whoa re authorized by Govt, of Punjab to sell their products in the state of Punjab and whose , addition have been made by Licensing Authority in the license of the petitioner- firm. 3. That as per complainant version on 10-08- 2005 he drew a sample of one insecticide i.e. Cartap Hydrochloride 4% G bearing Batch No. DIL-1116, Manufacturing May, 2005 and Expiry April, 2007 while picking one originally sealed and packed container weighing 5 Kg. as that was, lying properly from the shop premises of the petitioner-firm, withdrawing 750 gm material out of 5 Kg. as that was, lying properly from the shop premises of the petitioner-firm, withdrawing 750 gm material out of 5 Kg. original and sealed packing as manufactured by M/s Darrick Insecticides Ltd. Delhi. The said manufacturing company i.e. M/s Darrick Insecticides Ltd. Delhi is the registered and authorized manufacturing company by Govt, of Punjab to sell its products in the state of Punjab." 4. I have gone through the reply. The facts, as asserted in the petition, have been admitted being matter of record. 5. The facts and circumstances of the case leave no measure of doubt that the petitioner had acquired the insecticide from a duly licensed manufactured/distributor. Because the sample was drawn from a sealed packing, the petitioner had no means to know with reasonable diligence that the insecticide, in any way, contravened any provision of the Act. No material has been placed on record by the respondent to show that the insecticide, while in possession of the petitioner, was not properly stored and was not in the same state as it was when it had been acquired by the petitioner. 6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Complaint No. 254 dated 6.6.2008 under Sections 3(k)(i), 17,18,29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 titled State v. M/s Garg Traders and others, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur (Annexure P-1) is quashed.