Bengaluru: The High Court has quashed the case against the owners of a retail store accused of displaying low-quality pesticides manufactured by a company. This ruling came after a petition was filed by the store owners, Deenand Patil and others, which was heard by Justice S. Vishwajit Shetty.
The court noted that the petitioners were merely retailers who displayed and sold the company’s products but were not involved in the manufacturing process. As such, the court held that it was not feasible to hold them liable or impose penalties for the defects associated with the products
According to Section 33 of the Pesticide Act, only the responsible officials of a company producing substandard pesticides can be listed as defendants. The court emphasized that all employees of the company cannot be arraigned under Section 29 of the Act, which pertains to punishable offences.
Additionally, the court referenced Section 30(3) of the Pesticide Act, which protects individuals who are neither importers, manufacturers, nor agents of distributors from certain liabilities. The court expressed that if every individual handling substandard pesticides were to be treated as defendants, the retail store owner, along with those purchasing the pesticides, might also face legal consequences, which the court deemed unacceptable.
The principle of mens rea (criminal intent) is fundamental to criminal jurisprudence, meaning that there must be intent or purpose behind the offense. In this case, the court found no evidence of such intent and concluded that no legal action could be initiated against the petitioners. In this instance, the pesticides produced by the third-party company were found in the retail store of the first two defendants, with sealed containers subsequently seized by authorities. The court stated that allowing investigations against the petitioners would constitute an abuse of legal process; hence, the inquiry against them has been annulled.
The case arose when an agricultural officer filed a complaint alleging that the pesticides displayed at the petitioners’ store were substandard. Following the complaint, cases were registered against the defendants under Sections 3(k), 13, 17, and 29 of the Pesticide Act of 1968.
During the hearings, the defence counsel noted that the agricultural officer had confiscated the pesticides from the petitioners’ store. However, they emphasized that the store owners neither manufactured the pesticides nor were aware of their substandard quality. Thus, they argued that the case against them should not proceed.
In response, the prosecution contended that the pesticides from the retail store had indeed been seized and that a chemical analysis from a competent laboratory confirmed the low quality of the pesticides. Therefore, they urged that the case against the petitioners should continue and that the petition should be dismissed.
