[2026:RJ-JP:31586] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6265/2017 CNR: RJHC020736452017 | URN: CRLMP / 10462U / 2017 1. Chambal Fertilizers And Chemicals Limited, C-99, Shrijee Tower, Shubhash Marg, Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 2. Shri B.k. Fotedar S/o Late Shri S.l. Fotedar, aged about 50years, R/o Flat No. 372, Plot No. 7, New Delhi Apartments, Vasundhra Enclave, Delhi-110096. Responsible Person Of Chambal Fertilizers And Chemicals Ltd. C-99, Shrijee Tower, Shubhash Marg, Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan Through, Assistant Director, Agriuculture Extension And Insecticide Inspector, Sanganer Shri Khemraj Sharma ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Pareek Mr. Roshan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Date of conclusion of arguments : 07/08/2026 Date on which the judgment was reserved : 07/08/2026 Whether the full order or only the operative part is pronounced : Full Judgment Date of pronouncement : 10/08/2026 Order 10/08/2026 1. Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by petitioners to quash criminal complaint and proceedings of criminal complaint no. 191/2017 (383/2009), NCB no. 3599 of 2014, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur. [2026:RJ-JP:31586] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-6265/2017] 2. Learned counsel for petitioners while referring judgment in case of M/s T. Stanes & Company Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2004 (0) Supreme Raj 1558 = 2005 (0) WLC 156, submitted that the Insecticide Inspector has filed a complaint before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaipur District for alleged offence under Section 17(1)(A) and Section 29(1)(A) of the Insecticide Act, 1968, against seven persons and present petitioners are one of the accused named by the Inspector. He also submitted that the entire proceeding has been instituted on the basis of a sample collected on 19-7-2007 from M/s. Khandelwal Khaad Beej Bhandar, Lalsot Road, near Bus Stand, Tunga (Jaipur) and after the laboratory report about the sample, the complaint is filed. He also submitted that M/s Spectrum Ethers Ltd. is manufacturer of the product which was purchased by the Inspector and admittedly present petitioners are only marketeers. He also submitted that on 23-10-2017, the manufacturer M/s Spectrum Ethers Ltd. and its representative, Shri Rao Sahab Devre have pleaded guilty and the trial court has convicted them and fined ₹2,000/- each upon them. He also submitted that after the admission of guilt by the manufacturer, no proceedings can continue against present petitioner. He placed reliance upon judgment in case of Manoj Grover Vs. State of Punjab, CRM no. 4582/2008 dated 15-12-2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred Section 30(3) of the Insecticide Act and submitted that the petitioners are not responsible for the act committed by the [2026:RJ-JP:31586] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-6265/2017] manufacturer and he also referred Section 30(3) of the Insecticide Act, and submitted that the petitioners are not responsible for misbranding of sample. 3. Learned counsel for learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and submitted that jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC can not be exercised to quash the proceedings on the basis of the fact that manufacturer has pleaded guilty before the trial court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 5. On 19-7-2007, Assistant Director Agriculture (Extension), Sanganer, has collected sample of Pesticide Phorate 10% CG under the Insecticide Act, 1968. One of the samples was sent for examination and as per examination, the sample was declared as misbranded. At the request of M/s Khandelwal Beej Bhandar, another sample was sent to Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad, and again same was found as misbranded. The report of Jaipur Laboratory clearly indicate that active ingredients were 7.45% whereas Central Laboratory found that the ingredients were 7.2% whereas the standard is of 10%. A complaint has been filed against seven persons including present petitioners. The retailer and manufacturer, M/s Spectrum Ethers Limited have pleaded guilty on 23-10-2017 and the learned ACJM No. 1, Jaipur District, has convicted them under Section 17(1)(A) and 29(1)(A) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 and extended them benefit of Section 4 under the Probation of Offenders Act, and further imposed ₹2,000/- each cost. [2026:RJ-JP:31586] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-6265/2017] 6. In case of M/s T. Stanes & Company Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), a co-ordinate Bench has considered the case on the basis of judgment in case of Tarsem Singh Vs. Union of India reported in 1997 (1) EFR 127, and quashed the cognizance under the Essential Commodities Act. The judgment has no bearing upon present case and same is not helpful to the petitioners. 7. In case of Manoj Grover Vs. State of Punjab (supra), again judgment in case of Tarsem Singh Vs. Union of India (supra) was considered and FIR under the Essential Commodities Act was quashed. Thus, this judgment is also not applicable upon facts of the case. 8. Section 30 of the Insecticide Act provides for defense that may or may not be allowed in prosecutions and same is reproduced as under: "30. Defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecutions under this Act.- (1)Save as hereinafter provided in this section, it shall be no defence in a prosecution under this Act to prove merely that the accused was ignorant of the nature or quality of the insecticide in respect of which the offence was committed or of the risk involved in the manufacture, sale or use of such insecticide or of the circumstances of its manufacture or import. (2)For the purposes of section 17, an insecticide shall not be deemed to be misbranded only by reason of the fact that- (a)there has been added thereto some innocuous substance or ingre-dient because the same is required for the manufacture or the preparation of the insecticide as an article of commerce in a state fit for carriage or consumption, and not to increase the bulk, weight or measure of the insecticide or to conceal its inferior quality or other defect; or [2026:RJ-JP:31586] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-6265/2017] (b)in the process of manufacture, preparation or conveyance some extraneous substance has unavoidably become intermixed with it. (3)A person not being an importer or a manufacturer of an insecticide or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for a contravention of any provision of this Act, if he proves- (a)that he acquired the insecticide from an importer or a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof; (b)that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the insecticide in any way contravened any provision of this Act; and (c)that the insecticide, while in his possession, was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it." 9. Learned counsel for petitioners has referred Section 30(3) which clearly indicate that the person not being a manufacturer of an insecticide or his agent for distribution thereof shall not be liable for the contravention of any of the provision of this Act, provided he proves that the insecticide has been procured from a duly licensed manufacturer and he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained that the insecticide in any way contravened any provision of this Act and the insecticide was properly stored and remained in same state as he acquired it. 10. In the instant case, the petitioners have failed to show existence of facts as mentioned in Section 30(3)(b) and (c) of the Insecticide Act, 1968. The petitioner is not entitled to claim defense as available under Section 30(3), unless he proves the condition as mentioned in Section 30(3) of the Insecticide Act, therefore, this court cannot exercise [2026:RJ-JP:31586] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-6265/2017] jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings on the ground raised in the instant petition. 11. In view of discussion made herein above, the misc. petition preferred by petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any. 12. Stay application, if any, is also stands dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 134/Chetna