MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Dealer Not Liable For substandard fertilizer in sealed bags, Cites Manufacturer’s Sole Liability :Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Complaint Against Fertilizer Dealer

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a criminal complaint and summoning order against Bhupinder Garg and other petitioners concerning substandard fertilizer. The judgment, delivered by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, underscores that liability for substandard fertilizer in sealed bags lies with the manufacturer, not the dealer. The court’s decision in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. CRM-M-43605-2018 reaffirms existing legal precedents, providing crucial clarity on the responsibilities of dealers and manufacturers under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985.

Dealer vs. Manufacturer Liability: The court meticulously analyzed the liability of dealers versus manufacturers in cases involving substandard fertilizers. Justice Bedi noted that the samples in question were taken from sealed and properly stored fertilizer bags, a critical detail that influenced the ruling. “The dealer is not liable for the substandard fertilizer as the responsibility lies with the manufacturer,” the court observed, reinforcing the principles set out in several precedents.

The judgment extensively referenced previous rulings, including Manoj Grover v. State of Punjab, Kehar Singh v. State of Punjab, and M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. V. State of Punjab, which consistently upheld that dealers cannot be held liable for substandard fertilizers found in sealed bags. “There is no evidence to suggest that the bags/packets of the fertilizer were torn or improperly stored,” noted Justice Bedi, emphasizing that any manufacturing defect is solely the responsibility of the manufacturer.

Evidence and Legal Reasoning: Justice Bedi highlighted that the prosecution failed to provide any evidence that the dealers had tampered with or improperly stored the fertilizer bags. The court held that “in the absence of any evidence on record, or the statement to the effect that the petitioners were in any manner associated in the manufacture of the fertilizer contained in the bags, they cannot be held liable for the contents of the fertilizer.”

Justice Bedi succinctly encapsulated the court’s stance: “The liability, if any, only lay with the manufacturer. The non-compliance of the sub-standard, if at all, can only be attributed to the manufacturer.”

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling is a pivotal affirmation of the legal boundaries defining dealer and manufacturer responsibilities in the fertilizer industry. By quashing Complaint Case No. 14 dated 22.03.2018 and the summoning order dated 07.04.2018, Justice Bedi’s decision underscores the importance of clear, evidence-based attribution of liability. This landmark judgment is expected to significantly impact how future cases involving substandard agricultural inputs are adjudicated, ensuring that manufacturers are held accountable for the quality of their products.

Date of Decision:7th May 2024

Bhupinder Garg & Others vs. State of Punjab

Latest Legal News