Chander Kanta vs State of Punjab

M.L. Koul, J. (Oral)

While the matter was being argued by the learned counsel for the parties, my attention was drawn towards the reply filed by the respondents wherein in para 2 it is admitted that the sample of Butachlor 50% E.C. was taken from the premises of the petitioners in original one litre container which was manufactured by M/s. B.L. Industries, Jaipur. The same was analysed at Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana and was declared misbranded.

On the similar facts I have given a detailed judgment in Crl.Misc. No. 20088M of 1995 M/s Amar Khad Store v. State of Punjab, 1996(3) Recent Criminal Reports 140 wherein it was observed that as the samples were purchased from the licensed manufacturer, and the same were drawn from the sealed containers, therefore, the petitioners could not know with reasonable diligence and care that the insecticide in any manner contravened any provision of the Act. It was further observed that if the samples and the material of insecticide available with them was misbranded the liability lies upon the manufacturer and not on the petitioners.

Having regard to the above observations, this case is squarely covered by that decision for the legalities and the facts involved in both the cases are same and no different opinion can be exercised by this Court in this case. Hence this petition is allowed in the same terms as in M/s Amar Khad Store''s case (supra) and the proceedings taken against the petitioners are quashed.