CRM-M-24819-2023 (O&M) and CRM-M-40281-2013 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 122 Decided on: April 16, 2026. (1) CRM-M-24819-2023 (O&M) CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE INDIA PVT. LIMITED ... Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF PUNJAB …Respondent(s) *** (2) CRM-M-40281-2023 (O&M) YASHPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER ... Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF PUNJAB …Respondent(s) RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2026.04.18 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24819-2023 (O&M) and CRM-M-40281-2013 (O&M) -2- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ PRESENT Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ashish Kothari, Advocate, Ms. Jasmeet Kaur, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Nagpal, Advocate, and Mr. Rohit Nagpal, Advocate, with Mr. Gurinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J. (ORAL) Both the above mentioned petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved of the proceedings initiated against them by way of Complaint No. COMA/28/2018 titled as "State Vs. M/s Jawandha Kheti Sewa & Ors" instituted on 04.07.2018 pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sunam, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 15.03.2019 passed by the then Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sunam. Reply on behalf of respondent-State has been filed in the Court today. A copy thereof has been supplied to the counsel for the petitioners. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) contends that the petitioner in CRM-M-24819-2023 is the Marketing Agent of M/s Chemtura Chemicals Private Limited while the petitioners in CRM-M-40281-2023 are ex-employees of the M/s Corteva Agriscience India Private Limited. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contends that as per the show cause notice sent by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Sangrur, Punjab, bearing Memo No.9955-57 dated 06.02.2013, the petitioner(s) RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2026.04.18 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24819-2023 (O&M) and CRM-M-40281-2013 (O&M) -3- had been put to notice in their capacity as managing agent of Piroxofop Propanyl 15% WP weedicide in respect whereof, a case of misbranding was identified by the respondents. He contends that the said Weedicide was declared to be misbranded by the Testing Laboratory, Amritsar, on the ground that it contained only 13.35% of the active ingredient as against the prescribed standard of 15%. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that even though the petitioners have multiple arguments, including the allegation that the contents of the sample, may have been tampered with, but he confines his arguments, at this stage, to the fact that the petitioners being managing agent and employees of the Marketing Company cannot be held liable to be prosecuted for the misbranding of the weedicide inasmuch as the product in question was seized in a sealed condition by the respondents and they being marketing agents, in such circumstances, the marketing agent cannot be held responsible for the contents of the sealed product over which they exercise no control. He contends that case in hand is covered in their favour by the judgment in the matter of M/s Rallis India Limited and others Vs. State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector passed in CRM-M-20388 of 2017 wherein this court while placing reliance on the judgments in Lochen Kheti Sewa Centre Vs. State of Punjab [2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 22], Deepak Sharma Vs. State of Punjab [2008 (2), RCR (Criminal) 24], Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab [2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 211], Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab [2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 202] and M/s Cheminova India Limited & Anr Vs. State of Punjab & Ors decided on RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2026.04.18 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24819-2023 (O&M) and CRM-M-40281-2013 (O&M) -4- 04.08.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.750 of 2021 has held as under: - “22. It is evident from a perusal of the petition as well as documents appended along with the same that the undisputed case of the respondent-State is that the petitioners were a marketing agent of the insecticides. It has been repeatedly so affirmed by the respondent in various paragraphs of the complaint instituted through Insecticide Inspector and already extracted above. It is also not a subject matter of dispute that the sample was drawn from a sealed packet and it is nowhere alleged that the sample had not been stored in accordance with the provisions contained under the Insecticides Act and Rules framed thereunder. There is also no allegation that the petitioners were responsible for the quality of the product as also for ensuring the labelled ingredients of the same. The petitioners are not nominated as the authorised/responsible officers in terms of Section 33 of the Insecticides Act. The statutory mandate intends to penalize a person who has committed an offence. It does not intend to prosecute the people who are merely dealing with the said product and for which they have no control as regards its quality and content. The petitioners cannot be held vicariously liable and to be penalized for misbranding of a product where they were not involved in the manufacturing process at all merely for having traded in the same. Section 3(k)(i) defines misbranding. The same relates to the label of products and its contents. It is not the case that any of the activities referred to under section 3 (k) attracting misbranding was undertaken by the petitioners. Further, Section 17 of the Act is also not attracted against the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners are neither the importer of the misbranded insecticides, nor manufacturer thereof. Further, the ingredients of Section 18 of the Act are RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2026.04.18 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24819-2023 (O&M) and CRM-M-40281-2013 (O&M) -5- also not satisfied and there is no allegation that the petitioners had indulged in the sale of the insecticides, which was either not registered under the Act or was prohibited under Section 27. Similarly, Section 29 also would not be applicable against the petitioners inasmuch as the same contemplates punishment for offences as stated above. Once the necessary ingredients of the said Sections are not satisfied against the petitioners, they cannot be penalized for the same. 23. Having noticed the undisputed facts, the position of law as well as statutory provisions under which the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted, I find myself in agreement with the precedent judgements of this Court referred to in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment. Considering the same along with undisputed fact, the instant petition is allowed and the complaint No.18 of 11.07.2016 (Annexure P-1) titled as 'State Versus M/s Goyal Sales Corporation and Others' pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sri Muktsar Sahib for offences under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Section 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 as well as the subsequent proceedings including the order of summoning dated 11.07.2016 (Annexure P-2) are accordingly quashed qua the petitioners.” State counsel does not dispute that the product in question was a manufactured product of M/s Chemtura Chemicals Private Limited and that the petitioners herein are only the marketing agents of the manufacturer and employees of the marketing firm. Without going into the controversy any further and taking into consideration the undisputed facts as above and that the case in hand is covered against the respondent and in favour of the petitioners as per RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2026.04.18 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24819-2023 (O&M) and CRM-M-40281-2013 (O&M) -6- ratio in the judgment rendered in the matter of M/s Rallis India Limited and others (supra), the present petitions are allowed in terms thereof. Criminal Complaint bearing COMA No.28 of 2018 tiled as ‘State Vs/ M/s Jawandha Kheti Sewa and others instituted on 04.07.2018 and the order dated 15.03.2019 summoning the petitioners herein are quashed qua the petitioners herein. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of accordingly. A photocopy of the order be placed on the connected file(s). April 16, 2026. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) raj arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2026.04.18 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document