Manesh Kumar vs State of Punjab

M.M. Aggarwal, J.—This is a petition for quashing the complaint under the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Insecticide Rules, 1971.

The facts of the case are that Insecticide Inspector, Sahnewal, district Ludhiana, filed complaint against Manesh Kumar, Proprietor M/s. Goyal

Traders and two other for offence under Sections 3k(i), 17, 18, 29(i) and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 with Rule 27(5) of Insecticide Rules,

1971.

The accused were directed to be summoned to face trial by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana vide order dated 21.1.1999.

The contention of Manesh Kumar, Proprietor M/s. Goyal Traders is that he is just a licensed dealer and is not the manufacturer and it was a

case of just mis-branding; that the sample was taken from a sealed container and that he was not liable.

The order of Joint Director of Agriculture, Punjab, exercising the powers u/s 15 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and Appeal Rules, 1971, dated

23.2.1998 had been produced vide which protection u/s 30(3) of the Act had been given to Manesh Goyal, Proprietor M/s Goyal Traders and his

licence had been restored. The insecticide had been manufactured by registered manufacturing company and it had been sold in the same condition

as it was purchased and sample had been taken from the sealed container.

Reply had been filed by Agricultural Development Officer-cum-Insecticide Inspector in which factum of restoration of the licence was admitted.

Counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on judgments of this Court reported as M/s. Satyug Presticides, Baghapurana v. State of Punjab,

2003(3) CCC 229 (P&H): 2003 (3) RCR (Cri) 596 and M/s. S.S. Aggarwal and Co. and others v. State of Punjab, 2003 (3) CCC 253 (P&H):

2003(3) RCR (Cri) 650 that when the sample taken from the sealed container is found to be misbranded by Analyst and departmental authorities

restored the licence giving protection of Section 30(3) of the Act, the criminal proceedings could not continue.

As per law laid down in the authorities relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, the complaint as against the dealer had been quashed since

the licence had been restored as sample was taken from a sealed container and the case was only of misbranding and petitioner was trader only.

The facts of the present as against the petitioner are the same.

Under these circumstances, the present petition is allowed. The complaint (Annexure P-1) summoning order (Annexure P-2) and the

subsequent proceedings thereto pending in the trial Court are quashed as against the petitioner.