P&H HC Quashes Misbranded-Insecticide Case Against Retailer Over Sealed Manufacturer Pack, With No Tampering Or Improper Storage Alleged

An Insecticides Inspector inspected M/s Jandiali Trading Co. on 20.07.2012 and sampled a sealed 5 kg packet of Cartap Hydrochloride 4% G manufactured by M/s FIL Industries Limited.

The initial laboratory report and subsequent Central Insecticides Laboratory report found the sample misbranded.

A complaint under the Insecticides Act, 1968 was filed against the dealer firm, its proprietor, the manufacturer and company officials, including Syed Mohammad Altaf, its Managing Director, and Prince Gumber, its Regional Sales Manager.

The petitioners sought quashing of the complaint, summoning orders and consequential proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The dealer and proprietor relied on the defence under Section 30(3); Altaf disputed responsibility under Section 33; and Gumber disputed that he was responsible for the company’s business when the offence was committed.

Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act protects a person who is not the importer, manufacturer or their distribution agent where the person proves that the insecticide was acquired from an authorised source, the contravention could not reasonably have been discovered, and the product was properly stored and remained unchanged while in that person’s possession.

Under Section 33(1), a company and each person who, at the time of the offence, was in charge of or responsible to it for the conduct of its business may be proceeded against; a Managing Director cannot be prosecuted solely on a general allegation based on designation where no specific role is pleaded.

Section 22(5) permits taking three containers instead of dividing a sample only in the circumstances specified by that provision, while Section 22(6)(i) requires dispatch of a sample “forthwith”.

In Cheminova India Limited v. State of Punjab, (2021) 8 SCC 818, the Supreme Court held that vague allegations do not suffice to prosecute a Managing Director where responsible persons are identified; M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar v. Chief Agricultural Officer, 1990 (Supp) SCC 11, recognised the Section 30(3) defence where a product was sold in an intact sealed container.

State of Punjab v. Devinder Kumar, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 714, was relied on regarding the absence of a requirement to send a sealed container where the sample quantity is sufficient.

The Court rejected the sampling objection because the 5 kg packet was not a small-volume container and the sample was sent on the next working day after collection.

It also rejected the objections to the summoning order and limitation.

As to Altaf, the licensing records identified other officials as responsible for quality control and business conduct, while the complaint attributed no specific role to him beyond his position as Managing Director; his prosecution therefore rested on a bald allegation and could not be sustained under Section 33.

The prosecution’s own documents showed that the dealer obtained the insecticide from the manufacturer and that the sample was drawn from a sealed packet; there was no allegation of tampering or improper storage.

The Court accordingly found the Section 30(3) conditions established on the undisputed record.

The licensing record further showed that Gumber had been replaced as the responsible person before the relevant period, so he was not liable under Section 33 for the alleged offence.

The complaint, summoning orders dated 19.12.2014 and 06.05.2015, and consequential proceedings were quashed qua Syed Mohammad Altaf, Lakhvir Singh, M/s Jandiali Trading Company and Prince Gumber.

Proceedings against the remaining accused were permitted to continue in accordance with law, with no opinion expressed on the merits of their case.