Puneet Gupta vs State of Haryana

M.L. Koul, J. (Oral)

While arguing the matter, Mr. Jain has drawn my attention to para 1 of the written statement filed by the respondent State wherein it is admitted that the petitioner who is a partner of the Puneet Sales Corporation is a licensed dealer running the business of Insecticide and Pesticide at Kurukshetra. On 1.7.1992 the respondent drew a sample of 24D 80% sodium salt B. No. 14 from the premises of M/s Puneet Sales Corporation. The same was taken from the original sealed two packings of 50 grams each. Both the sealed packings of the product were opened for taking sample. After the sampling the same was sent for testing at the State Quality Control Insecticide Laboratory, Kurukshetra and the same was declared to be 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 provisions 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 or 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 Stores case (supra) and the proceedings taken against the petitioners are quashed.