CRM-M-58338-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 174 CRM-M-58338-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.03.2026 Mohd. Yasin and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present : Mr. Rakesh Verma, Advocate, and Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab. ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing of complaint No.97 dated 03.07.2025 under Sections 3(K)(I), 17, 18, 29 & 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rule 10(4)(III) and 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 as well as summoning order dated 03.07.2025 and consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Learned counsel submits that petitioner No.1 is a dealer and has no role with the manufacturing of the insecticides, which was found to be misbranded. Moreover, there is no allegation made in the complaint with regard to he having not stored the same properly or that it was tampered with. As such, this Court in the case titled Anil Kumar and others vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-3430-2021, decided on 28.07.2023, against which no SLP was filed, quashed the complaint qua the dealer by observing that in the absence of a specific allegation of the sample being not stored in a proper manner they cannot be held liable, relevant paras read thus:- “7. This Court in Amarjeet Singh and others v. State of Punjab, (supra), where this Court while taking into consideration M/s Cheminova India Limited and another v. DINESH 2026.03.12 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-58338-2025 (O&M) -2- State of Punjab and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 573, M/s Rallis India Limited and others v. State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector, CRM-M-20338-2017 decided 20.04.2022, Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 211, Naresh Kumar and others v. State of Punjab, Jindal Fertilizers and Chemicals v. State of Punjab, 2010 (4) RCR (Criminal) 146, Lochen Kheti Sewa Centre v. State of Punjab, 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 22, Deepak Sharma v. State of Punjab, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 24, M/s Vimal and Co. Grain Market, Mullanpur v. State of Punjab, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 56 and M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v. Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur and another, 1990 (supp) SCC 111, quashed the complaint instituted against dealers/ partner/ supplier, on the ground that the sample was taken from sealed packets; no specific averment of it being not stored properly; judgment referred by State Counsel, M/s Gill Pesticides and another (supra), being distinguishable on facts; necessary ingredients of the offence were not attracted, thus continuation of proceedings amounting to abuse of process of law. 8. In the present case, the petitioners are the dealer firms and its proprietor, Godown In-charge, Director and Manager. The sample was drawn from a sealed packet, which fact has remained undisputed and there is no specific allegation of it being not stored in a proper manner. Further that, they had merely traded the product manufactured by the company and were not appointed or responsible for ensuring its quality as also there is no specific allegation of selling unregistered or prohibited products against them, therefore, the case of the petitioners falls within four comers of judgments in M/s Rallis India Limited and Surinder Kumar (supra), which fact the State counsel was unable to controvert, thus, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 9. Resultantly, the complaint case No.58 dated 03.11.2020, Annexure P-l as also the summoning order dated 11.11.2020, Annexure P-2 are quashed qua the petitioners.” 3. The petitioners are not the manufacturer of the insecticide, rather they are petitioner No.1 is the proprietor of petitioner No.2- Firm, a fact that remained unrebutted by the learned State counsel, who despite best efforts, could not draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary law. 4. As a consequence to the afore, the present petition is hereby DINESH 2026.03.12 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-58338-2025 (O&M) -3- allowed and complaint No. 97 dated 03.07.2025 under Sections 3(K)(I), 17, 18, 29 & 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rule 10(4)(III) and 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 as well as summoning order dated 03.07.2025 are hereby quashed, qua the petitioners only. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 11.03.2026 dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No DINESH 2026.03.12 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document