Kamaljeet Singh v. State of Punjab

CRM-M-17403-2017                                           1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-2441-2017  (O&M) Date of decision: 01.03.2023

AMARJIT SINGH & ORS ....Petitioner(s) Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent(s)

CRM-M-17403-2017   (O&M) KAMALJEET SINGH ....Petitioner(s) Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent(s)

CORAM:   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

00000

Present :   Mr. Rakesh Verma and Manish Verma, Advocates for the petitioners in CRM-M-2441-2017

Mr. P.S. Mighlani, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-17403-2017

Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG Punjab 00000 AMAN CHAUDHARY. J. This  common  order  shall  dispose  of  the  above-mentioned petitions, as they arise out of the same complaint, whereby the petitioners have  sought  quashing  of  the  Complaint  Case  No.211  dated  29.11.2012, Annexure P-1 registered under Section 3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of Insecticide Rules, 1971 titled as 'State Vs. M/s Grewal Sidhu Khetiwari Sewa Center and others' and CRM-M-17403-2017                                           2

summoning  order  dated  29.11.2012,  Annexure  P-2  alongwith  all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Learned  counsel  submits  that  Petitioner  No.2-  M/s  Grewal Sidhu Khetiwari Sewa Center in CRM-M-2441-2017 is an authorized dealer of M/s Saraswati Agro Chemical (India) Pvt. Ltd.,- manufacturer company, authorized to sell its products in the State of Punjab, which are   marketed by  M/s  Chambal  Fertilizers  &  Chemicals  Ltd.  Chandigarh,  while petitioners-Amarjeet  Singh  and  Kamaljeet  Singh  are  the  partners  of aforesaid  dealer  firm  and  petitioner  No.3  in  CRM-M-2441-2017  is  the supplier of material to shopkeepers.  His further submission is that from the complaint filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 29.11.2022 it is apparent that the sample was drawn by the Insecticide Inspector on

15.12.2010 from the premises of the petitioner at random from three sealed packing  of  Clodinofop  Propargul  (Weeza)  15%  WP   and  was  sent  for analysis to the laboratory on 17.12.2010. The report regarding which was received  on  30.12.2010,  declaring  the  sample  as  being  misbranded. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to petitioners on 07.01.2011 to which, a reply was submitted on 17.01.2011. The second sample was sent to the  laboratory  on  15.02.2011  and  report  whereof  was  received  on

11.03.2011.  Subsequently  another  show-cause  notice  was  issued  and  the licence of the petitioner was cancelled, which was restored by the Appellate Authority  of  the  Department  i.e.  Joint  Director  of  Agriculture  Plant Protection Punjab. CRM-M-17403-2017                                           3

It is his submission that the samples were drawn from original sealed and packed containers as these facts are mentioned in para 3 of the petition, which stand admitted in the corresponding para of the reply filed by the  State.  Therefore, the  petitioners  being  dealer/partners/supplier  had  no control  over  the  manufacturing  process  of  the  said  insecticide  and  thus, cannot  be  held  liable  for  any  misbranding  thereof.  He  relies  on  the judgments passed by this Court in the case of M/s Rallies India Ltd. & others Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-20338-2017, decided 20.04.2022 and Naresh Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal)

¶202Learned  State  counsel  on  the  other  hand  submits  that  the petitioners are liable to be prosecuted as per the provisions of Section 29 of the Act as it is not only the manufacturer, who is liable, even the stockiest is also liable. In the eventuality, it is found that the misbranded product, was not stored properly, which is a matter of trial, it would be the liability of the petitioners as well, thus, prays for the dismissal of the present petitions. He relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Gill Pesticides and another  Vs.  State  of  Punjab,  CRM-M-27108-2016,  decided  on

15.05.2018. In rebuttal learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no averment made in the complaint that the product was not stored in proper condition. Still further he submits that it is the responsibility of the concerned official of the department, who took the sample to ascertain facts regarding storage having been done in proper manner or not. In the present CRM-M-17403-2017                                           4

case, there is no such observations made by the Insecticide Inspector. In order to further buttress his submission with regard to the responsibility of the  manufacturing  of  the  product,  he  makes  a  reference  to  definition  of misbranding as contained in Section 3(k) of the Act. Learned State counsel further makes a reference to Section 30 of  the  Act  to  submit  that  merely  submitting  that  they  were  ignorant  of quality and nature of the product as they were not the manufacturers would not be a valid defence. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a reference to Section 30(3) of the Act as per which, he submits that  in case a person has  acquired  a  product  from  the  importer,  or  a  duly  licensed manufacturer/distributor or a dealer, he cannot be held liable. In the present case as has been submitted the manufacturer was registered and authorized by the Government of Punjab for selling its product within the said State and the petitioners cannot be held liable for the product, the sample of which was taken from sealed packets, having been found misbranded. Heard. It would be apposite to make a reference to the relevant part of Section 30 of the Act, which reads thus:

30.  Defences  which  may  or  may  not  be  allowed  in prosecutions under this Act.— (1 & 2)      xx    xx    xx

(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— CRM-M-17403-2017                                           5

(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. It is an admitted position between the parties that the samples were drawn from original sealed and packed containers, a fact specifically averred in para 3 of the petition and responded to as being matter of record, in  the  reply.  Still  further,  in  the  test  reports  dated  30.12.2010  and

11.11.2011, in  para 6 thereof it was recorded thus: "6. Condition of the seals on the package state whether:

i) the sample of properly sealed and fastened: YES

ii) the seal was intact and unbroken: YES

(iii) the seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the  sample  tailed  with  specimen  impression  of  seal separately sent by the Insecticides Inspector: YES

iv) the sample was in a condition fit for analysis: YES

v) the sample received was in original container: YES" This Court in the case of M/S Rallis India Limited (supra), filed by a marketing agent quashed the complaint and summoning order while observing that, "It is not a subject matter of dispute that the sample was drawn from a sealed packet and it is nowhere alleged that the sample had not been stored in accordance with the provisions contained under the Insecticides Act and Rules framed thereunder. There is also no allegation that the petitioners were responsible for the quality of the product as also for ensuring  the  labelled  ingredients  of  the  same.  The  petitioners  are  not SANDAL SHARMA CRM-M-17403-2017                                           6

no3inated as t2e a)t2o'iDedB'es.onsi:7e office's in te'3s of "ection 33 of t2e  nsecticides Act.K n t2e case of Na& s% -).a& a!" $#% &s (s).'a)4 fi7ed :; a 7icencee a77o8ed t2e .etition fo' <)as2in6 t2e co3.7aint and s)33onin6 o'de' :; o:se'5in6 t2)s: "7.It is evident from above that sample was taken from original packing.

8.Affidavit dated 06.12.2010 of S Navtej Singh, Insecticide Inspector, District Kapurthala has been filed. Para 1 of the said affidavit reads under:- I1. Original packing as per Form XX refers to the stock in possession of accused, which at the time of sampling is in a sealed condition which is purported to be same as packed, lebelled and sealed by the manufacturer. Although, it is stated in the subsequent paragraph that it is yet to be determined whether the insecticide in question (Monocrotophos 36% SL of one liter each) was in original sealed packing or as to whether the sealed packing was tampered with or not, the allegation in the complaint and Form No. XX speaks for themselves. There is no doubt left that the sample was drawn from the originally sealed and packed containers weighing one liter and packed by the registered and authorized manufacturing company. There is no allegation that in the said complaint that the said seal was tampered with or the originally packing was tampered with. There is no allegation that the said sample was not stored in the same state." !2e  Dea7e'  and  Dist'i:)to'  2ad  fi7ed  case  tit7ed  Ji!"al F #iliti &s a!" C% .i/als 's. S#a#  $( P)!*a+, 2010 (4) RCR (C'i3ina7) 14@4 82e'ein a7so t2e sa3.7e 8as d'a8n f'o3 o'i6ina7 .ac1in6 and it 8as 2e7d  :;  t2is  Co)'t  t2at4  IAd3itted7;4  t2e  .etitione's  a'e  not  t2e 3an)fact)'e's of t2e insecticides :)t t2e dea7e' and t2e dist'i:)to'. %ence4 t2e; cannot :e 2e7d 'es.onsi:7e fo' 3is:'andin6 t2e insecticide4 82ic2 8as not 3an)fact)'ed :; t2e3. !2e .etitione's 8e'e on7; in5o75ed in t2e sa7e of SANDAL SHARMA CRM-M-17403-2017                                           7

insecticide. !2e co3.7aint <)a 3an)fact)'e's is .endin6. !2e'e is not2in6 on 'eco'd to s)66est t2at t2e insecticide 2ad not :een .'o.e'7; sto'ed :; t2e .etitione'sLL. In case of Lochen Kheti Sewa Centre Vs. State of Punjab, 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 22, this Court had observed that, "Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has very fairly stated that the petitioner is not the manufacturer. The sample was drawn from sealed packets and there is no material to indicate that it was properly stored. Under the circumstances the petitioner cannot be held liable for misbranding of the insecticide. Only the manufacturer, who is being proceeded against would be responsible". Likewise, in the case of Deepak Sharma Vs. State of Punjab, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 24, this Court observed that, "The sample seized, on analysis, was found to be misbranded. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is that a seller cannot be prosecuted. In support thereof, reliance is placed upon M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar vs. Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur and another, 1990 (supp) Supreme Court Cases 11 and M/s Vimal and Co. Grain Market, Mullanpur v. State of Punjab, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 56. The former judicial pronouncement was rendered by the Apex Court, while the latter was rendered by this Court. Both these judicial pronouncements are fully supportive of the advocate point of view". Similarly, this Court in the case of Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 211 held thus:- "2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a licensee under Insecticide Act, 1968 to deal with various kinds of insecticides and pesticides of CRM-M-17403-2017                                           8

registered and approved manufacturers. It has further been clarified that the petitioner sells only sealed and packed insecticides/pesticides. A sample of insecticide that has been manufactured by a company approved by Government of Punjab was drawn on 25.05.2001. The sample was drawn from originally sealed and packed container. In above regards, learned counsel has referred to para No.3 of the petition which is extracted hereunder: I3. That as per complainant version on

25.05.2001, he drew a sample of one insecticide i.e. Metalyax 8% + Mancozeb 64% EC bearing Batch No.KG-09, Mfg. November, 2000 and Expiry October, 2002 out of two 500 gms. Originally sealed and packed containers lying properly from the shop premises of the petitioner-firm as manufactured by M/s. Fungicide India Ltd. Jammu. The said manufacturing company i.e. M/s Fungicide Ltd. Jammu is the registered and authorised manufacturing company by Govt. of Punjab to sell its products in the State of Punjab" 3 & 4 xx xx xx

¶5It is not in dispute that the petitioner has a licence to sell insecticides and pesticides manufactured by companies approved by Government of India and Government of Punjab. It is further not in dispute that the sample that has been drawn has been manufactured by approved manufacturer. There is no material available on the file to indicate that the insecticide was stored in violation of rules. It is also the admitted position that sample was drawn from originally sealed and packed containers.

¶6In view of the above, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the petitioner who is merely selling the insecticide had no occasion to tamper with the contents of the container/insecticide.

¶7In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would he abuse of process of law and abuse of process of Court. The petitioners being only involved in sale of insecticide, cannot be held responsible for the contents of the container from which the sample has been drawn." CRM-M-17403-2017                                           9

In  the  case  of  Cheminova  India  Limited  and  another  Vs. State  of  Punjab and  others,  decided on 04.08.2021 passed  in  Criminal Appeal No.750 of 2021, Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India held that the proceedings under the Insecticides Act cannot be instituted against all and sundry persons of the company and that as per the mandate of Section 33 of the Act, it is clear that responsible persons of the company alone can be proceeded  against and found the prosecution against the Managing Director to be nothing but, abuse of the process of law. The statutory provision mandates to penalise only the person, who has  committed the  offence under the  Insecticides  Act  and does  not intend to prosecute persons, who are merely dealing with the said product, within whose domain is neither the process of manufacturing nor control over its content and  quality. The petitioners are incontrovertibly, the dealer/ partners/ supplier of the insecticides, that had been found to be misbranded, the sample of which was taken from sealed packets. There is neither any averment in the complaint nor in the reply to the present petition that it was not stored  properly.  They have merely traded the product manufactured by the company, which was authorised  to sell its product within the  State of Punjab. Therefore, once the necessary ingredients of the offences are not attracted,  the  continuation  of  the  proceedings  against  the  petitioners  to prosecute them  would amount to abuse of process of law and thus, the same deserve to be quashed. The  judgment  relied  upon  by  the  learned  State  counsel  is distinguishable on facts. CRM-M-17403-2017                                           10

In  view  of  the  forgoing  discussion,  the  present  petitions  are allowed.  Consequently,  the  Complaint  Case  No.211  dated  29.11.2012, Annexure P-1 as also the summoning order dated 29.11.2012, Annexure P-2 are quashed qua the petitioners. Photocopy  of  the  judgment  be  placed  on  the  file  of  the connected case.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE March 01, 2023 S.Sharma(syr)