Court Rules That Liability for Misbranded Insecticides Lies With Manufacturer, Not Distributor
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the complaint against M/s Suminova Agri Science and its office bearers, who were accused in a case of selling misbranded insecticides. The judgment, delivered by Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor, underscores that marketing companies or distributors cannot be held liable for misbranding if the insecticide sample is drawn from a sealed container, placing the liability squarely on the manufacturer.
The case originated from a complaint filed by the State of Punjab, alleging that the insecticide Fipronil 0.3% GR, marketed by M/s Suminova Agri Science, was found to be misbranded following tests by both the State Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Bhatinda, and the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad. The insecticide was manufactured by M/s Vikas Organic Ind. Corporation, Faridkot.
The Court observed that the petitioners, M/s Suminova Agri Science, were not involved in the manufacturing process and had merely marketed the product in its original sealed packaging as received from the manufacturer. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court and previous judgments, the Court reiterated that liability for misbranding cannot be transferred to distributors who merely trade the product without involvement in its production or labeling.
Additionally, the Court criticized the summoning order issued by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna, for lacking application of mind and failing to provide reasons for proceeding against the accused. The judgment emphasized that any summoning order must reflect judicial reasoning to establish a prima facie case against the accused.
This decision reinforces the legal principle that distributors and marketers should not be penalized for issues related to product quality and branding, which are beyond their control. The Court's ruling sets a precedent, protecting distributors from vicarious liability in cases where they are not directly involved in the manufacturing process.
The judgment is expected to have significant implications for the distribution sector, providing clarity on the responsibilities and liabilities of distributors in the event of misbranding by manufacturers.
Bottom Line:
Marketing company or distributor cannot be held liable for misbranding of insecticide if the sample is drawn from a sealed container, as liability lies with the manufacturer. Summoning order must reflect application of mind and reasons for proceeding against accused.
Statutory provision(s): Insecticides Act, 1968 Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33, Rule 27(5) of Insecticides Rules, 1971, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482
M/s Suminova Agri Science v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2833164
