Amarjit Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab

CRM-M-17403-2017oooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo1

o o INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABo&oHARYANAo AToCHANDIGARHo 205o o CRM-M-2441-2017oo(O&M)o Dateoofodecision:o01.03.2023o o AMARJIToSINGHo&oORSo o oooooooo....Petitioner(s)o o o o o o Versusoo o STATEoOFoPUNJABo ooooo o...Respondent(s)o o o CRM-M-17403-2017ooo(O&M)o KAMALJEEToSINGHoo o oooooooo....Petitioner(s)o o o o o o Versusoo o STATEoOFoPUNJABo ooooo o...Respondent(s)o o CORAM:oo HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoAMANoCHAUDHARYo o o o o o o o o o*****o o Presento:oo Mr.oRakeshoVermaoandoManishoVerma,oAdvocatesoo o o forotheopetitionersoinoCRM-M-2441-2017o o o o Mr.oP.S.oMighlani,oAdvocateoo o o forotheopetitioneroinoCRM-M-17403-2017o o o o Mr.oManipaloSinghoAtwal,oDAGoPunjabo *****o AMANoCHAUDHARY.oJ.o o o Thiso commono ordero shallo disposeo ofo theo above-mentionedo petitions,oasotheyoariseooutoofotheosameocomplaint,owherebyotheopetitionerso haveo soughto quashingo ofo theo Complainto Caseo No.211o datedo 29.11.2012,o AnnexureoP-1oregisteredounderoSectiono3(k)o(i),o17,o18,o29oando33oofotheo InsecticideoAct,o1968oreadowithoRuleo27(5)oofoInsecticideoRules,o1971otitledo aso'StateoVs.oM/soGrewaloSidhuoKhetiwarioSewaoCenteroandoothers'oando CRM-M-17403-2017oooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo2

summoningo ordero datedo 29.11.2012,o Annexureo P-2o alongwitho allo consequentialoproceedingsoarisingotherefrom.o o o Learnedo counselo submitso thato Petitionero No.2-o M/so Grewalo SidhuoKhetiwarioSewaoCenteroinoCRM-M-2441-2017oisoanoauthorizedodealero ofoM/soSaraswatioAgrooChemicalo(India)oPvt.oLtd.,-omanufacturerocompany,o authorizedotooselloitsoproductsoinotheoStateoofoPunjab,owhichoareooomarketedo byo M/so Chambalo Fertilizerso &o Chemicalso Ltd.o Chandigarh,o whileo petitioners-Amarjeeto Singho ando Kamaljeeto Singho areo theo partnerso ofo aforesaido dealero firmo ando petitionero No.3o ino CRM-M-2441-2017o iso theo supplieroofomaterialotooshopkeepers.ooHisofurtherosubmissionoisothatofromotheo complaintofiledobeforeotheoCourtoofoChiefoJudicialoMagistrateoono29.11.2022o itoisoapparentothatotheosampleowasodrawnobyotheoInsecticideoInspectoroono

15.12.2010ofromotheopremisesoofotheopetitioneroatorandomofromothreeosealedo packingo ofo Clodinofopo Propargulo (Weeza)o 15%o WPoo ando waso sento foro analysisotootheolaboratoryoono17.12.2010.oTheoreportoregardingowhichowaso receivedo ono 30.12.2010,o declaringo theo sampleo aso beingo misbranded.o Thereafter,oaoshow-causeonoticeowasoissuedotoopetitionersoono07.01.2011otoo which,oaoreplyowasosubmittedoono17.01.2011.oTheosecondosampleowasosentotoo theo laboratoryo ono 15.02.2011o ando reporto whereofo waso receivedo ono

11.03.2011.o Subsequentlyo anothero show-causeo noticeo waso issuedo ando theo licenceoofotheopetitionerowasocancelled,owhichowasorestoredobyotheoAppellateo Authorityo ofo theo Departmento i.e.o Jointo Directoro ofo Agricultureo Planto CRM-M-17403-2017oooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo3

o Itoisohisosubmissionothatotheosamplesowereodrawnofromooriginalo sealedoandopackedocontainersoasotheseofactsoareomentionedoinoparao3oofotheo petition,owhichostandoadmittedoinotheocorrespondingoparaoofotheoreplyofiledobyo theo State.o Therefore,otheo petitionerso beingo dealer/partners/suppliero hado noo controlo overo theo manufacturingo processo ofo theo saido insecticideo ando thus,o cannoto beo heldo liableo foro anyo misbrandingo thereof.o Heo relieso ono theo judgmentsopassedobyothisoCourtoinotheocaseoofoM/soRalliesoIndiaoLtd.o&o othersoVs.oStateoofoPunjab,oCRM-M-20338-2017,odecidedo20.04.2022oando NareshoKumaroandoothersoVs.oStateoofoPunjab,o2011o(2)oRCRo(Criminal)o

202.o o Learnedo Stateo counselo ono theo othero hando submitso thato theo petitionersoareoliableotoobeoprosecutedoasoperotheoprovisionsoofoSectiono29oofo theoActoasoitoisonotoonlyotheomanufacturer,owhooisoliable,oevenotheostockiestoiso alsooliable.oInotheoeventuality,oitoisofoundothatotheomisbrandedoproduct,owaso notostoredoproperly,owhichoisoaomatteroofotrial,oitowouldobeotheoliabilityoofotheo petitionersoasowell,othus,opraysoforotheodismissaloofotheopresentopetitions.oHeo reliesoonotheojudgmentoofothisoCourtoinotheocaseoofoM/soGilloPesticidesoando anothero Vs.o Stateo ofo Punjab,o CRM-M-27108-2016,o decidedo ono

15.05.2018.o o Inorebuttalolearnedocounseloforotheopetitionerosubmitsothatothereo isonooavermentomadeoinotheocomplaintothatotheoproductowasonotostoredoino properocondition.oStillofurtheroheosubmitsothatoitoisotheoresponsibilityoofotheo concernedoofficialoofotheodepartment,owhootookotheosampleotooascertainofactso regardingostorageohavingobeenodoneoinoproperomannerooronot.oInotheopresento CRM-M-17403-2017oooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo4

case,othereoisonoosuchoobservationsomadeobyotheoInsecticideoInspector.oIno orderotoofurtherobuttressohisosubmissionowithoregardotootheoresponsibilityoofo theo manufacturingo ofo theo product,o heo makeso ao referenceo too definitiono ofo misbrandingoasocontainedoinoSectiono3(k)oofotheoAct.o o o LearnedoStateocounselofurtheromakesoaoreferenceotooSectiono30o ofo theo Acto too submito thato merelyo submittingo thato theyo wereo ignoranto ofo qualityoandonatureoofotheoproductoasotheyowereonototheomanufacturersowouldo notobeoaovalidodefence.oo o o o o Inorebuttal,olearnedocounseloforotheopetitioneromakesoaoreferenceo tooSectiono30(3)oofotheoActoasoperowhich,oheosubmitsothatooinocaseoaopersono haso acquiredo ao producto fromo theo importer,o oro ao dulyo licensedo manufacturer/distributorooroaodealer,oheocannotobeoheldoliable.oInotheopresento caseoasohasobeenosubmittedotheomanufacturerowasoregisteredoandoauthorizedo byotheoGovernmentoofoPunjaboforosellingoitsoproductowithinotheosaidoStateoando theopetitionersocannotobeoheldoliableoforotheoproduct,otheosampleoofowhicho wasotakenofromosealedopackets,ohavingobeenofoundomisbranded.o o o Heard.o o o Itowouldobeoappositeotoomakeoaoreferenceotootheorelevantopartoofo Sectiono30oofotheoAct,owhichoreadsothus:o

30.o Defenceso whicho mayo oro mayo noto beo allowedo ino prosecutionsounderothisoAct.―o (1o&o2)ooooooxxo o xxo o xxo

(3)oAopersononotobeingoanoimporterooroaomanufactureroofo anoinsecticideoorohisoagentoforotheodistributionothereof,o shallonotobeoliableoforoaocontraventionoofoanyoprovisionoofo thisoAct,oifoheoproves―o CRM-M-17403-2017oooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo5

(a)othatoheoacquiredotheoinsecticideofromoanoimporterooroao dulyolicensedomanufacturer,odistributoroorodealerothereof;o

(b)othatoheodidonotoknowoandocouldonot,owithoreasonableo diligence,o haveo ascertainedo thato theo insecticideo ino anyo wayocontravenedoanyoprovisionoofothisoAct;oando

(c)o thato theo insecticide,o whileo ino hiso possession,o waso properlyostoredoandoremainedoinotheosameostateoasowheno heoacquiredoit.o o o Itoisoanoadmittedopositionobetweenotheopartiesothatotheosampleso wereodrawnofromooriginalosealedoandopackedocontainers,oaofactospecificallyo averredoinoparao3oofotheopetitionoandorespondedotooasobeingomatterooforecord,o ino theo reply.o Stillo further,o ino theo testo reportso datedo 30.12.2010o ando

11.11.2011,oinooparao6othereofoitowasorecordedothus:o "6.oConditionoofotheosealsoonotheopackageostateowhether:o

i)otheosampleoofoproperlyosealedoandofastened:oYESo

ii)otheosealowasointactoandounbroken:oYESo

(iii)otheosealofixedoonotheocontaineroandotheoouterocoveroofo theo sampleo tailedo witho specimeno impressiono ofo sealo separatelyosentobyotheoInsecticidesoInspector:oYESo

iv)otheosampleowasoinoaoconditionofitoforoanalysis:oYESo

v)otheosampleoreceivedowasoinooriginalocontainer:oYES"o o o ThisoCourtoinotheocaseoofoM/SoRallisoIndiaoLimitedo(supra),o filedobyoaomarketingoagentoquashedotheocomplaintoandosummoningoorderoo whileoobservingothat,o"Itoisonotoaosubjectomatteroofodisputeothatotheosampleo wasodrawnofromoaosealedopacketoandoitoisonowhereoallegedothatotheosampleo hadonotobeenostoredoinoaccordanceowithotheoprovisionsocontainedounderotheo InsecticidesoActoandoRulesoframedothereunder.oThereoisoalsoonooallegationo thatotheopetitionersowereoresponsibleoforotheoqualityoofotheoproductoasoalsooforo ensuringo theo labelledo ingredientso ofo theo same.o Theo petitionerso areo notoSANDAL SHARMA CRM-M-17403-2017oooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo6

no3inatedoasot2eoa)t2o'iDedB'es.onsi:7eooffice'soinote'3soofo"ectiono33oofo t2eo nsecticidesoAct.K o not2eocaseoofoNa& s%o-).a&oa!"o$#% &so(s).'a)4ofi7edo:;oao 7icenceeoa77o8edot2eo.etitionofo'o<)as2in6ot2eoco3.7aintoandos)33onin6o o'de'o:;oo:se'5in6ot2)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." o o !2eo Dea7e'o ando Dist'i:)to'o 2ado fi7edo caseo tit7edo Ji!"alo F #iliti &soa!"oC% .i/also's.oS#a# o$(oP)!*a+,o2010o(4)oRCRo(C'i3ina7)o 14@4o82e'einoa7soot2eosa3.7eo8asod'a8nof'o3oo'i6ina7o.ac1in6oandoito8aso 2e7do :;o t2iso Co)'to t2at4o IAd3itted7;4o t2eo .etitione'so a'eo noto t2eo 3an)fact)'e'soofot2eoinsecticideso:)tot2eodea7e'oandot2eodist'i:)to'.o%ence4o t2e;ocannoto:eo2e7do'es.onsi:7eofo'o3is:'andin6ot2eoinsecticide4o82ic2o8aso noto3an)fact)'edo:;ot2e3.o!2eo.etitione'so8e'eoon7;oin5o75edoinot2eosa7eoofoSANDAL SHARMA CRM-M-17403-2017oooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo7

insecticide.o!2eoco3.7ainto<)ao3an)fact)'e'soiso.endin6.o!2e'eoisonot2in6o ono'eco'dotoos)66estot2atot2eoinsecticideo2adonoto:eeno.'o.e'7;osto'edo:;ot2eo .etitione'sLL.o 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-17403-2017oooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo8

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-17403-2017oooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo9

o o Ino theo caseo ofo Cheminovao Indiao Limitedo ando anothero Vs.o Stateo ofo Punjaboando others,o decidedoono04.08.2021opassedo ino Criminalo AppealoNo.750oofo2021,oHon'bleoTheoSupremeoCourtoofoIndiaoheldothatotheo proceedingsounderotheoInsecticidesoActocannotobeoinstitutedoagainstoalloando sundryopersonsoofotheocompanyoandothatoasoperotheomandateoofoSectiono33oofo theoAct,oitoisoclearothatoresponsibleopersonsoofotheocompanyoaloneocanobeo proceededooagainstoandofoundotheoprosecutionoagainstotheoManagingoDirectoro toobeonothingobut,oabuseoofotheoprocessoofolaw.oo o o Theostatutoryoprovisionomandatesotoopenaliseoonlyotheoperson,o whoohaso committedotheo offenceounderotheo Insecticideso Acto andodoeso noto intendotooprosecuteopersons,owhooareomerelyodealingowithotheosaidoproduct,o withinowhoseodomainoisoneitherotheoprocessoofomanufacturingonorocontrolo overoitsocontentoandooquality.oTheopetitionersoareoincontrovertibly,otheodealer/o partners/osupplieroofotheoinsecticides,othatohadobeenofoundotoobeomisbranded,o theosampleoofowhichowasotakenofromosealedopackets.oThereoisoneitheroanyo avermentoinotheocomplaintonoroinotheoreplyotootheopresentopetitionothatoitowaso notostoredooproperly.ooTheyohaveomerelyotradedotheoproductomanufacturedobyo theocompany,owhichowasoauthorisedootooselloitsoproductowithinotheooStateoofo Punjab.oTherefore,oonceotheonecessaryoingredientsoofotheooffencesoareonoto attracted,o theo continuationo ofo theo proceedingso againsto theo petitionerso too prosecuteothemoowouldoamountotooabuseoofoprocessoofolawoandothus,otheosameo deserveotoobeoquashed.o o o Theo judgmento reliedo upono byo theo learnedo Stateo counselo iso CRM-M-17403-2017oooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo10

o Ino viewo ofo theo forgoingo discussion,o theo presento petitionso areo allowed.o Consequently,o theo Complainto Caseo No.211o datedo 29.11.2012,o AnnexureoP-1oasoalsootheosummoningoorderodatedo29.11.2012,oAnnexureoP-2o areoquashedoquaotheopetitioners.o o Photocopyo ofo theo judgmento beo placedo ono theo fileo ofo theo connectedocase.ooo o o o o o o o o oo(AMANoCHAUDHARY)oo o o o o o o ooooooo oooooo ooooooJUDGEo Marcho01,o2023o S.Sharma(syr)o o o Whetherospeaking/reasonedoo o :oo Yes/Noo o Whetheroreportableoo o o :oo Yes/Nooo