REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 2 Insecticide Act, 1968. The dealer M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides and its Proprietor, have filed separate petition seeking identical relief. Since both petitions relate to the same case, they are being taken up together for decision. 2. The facts, evident from the complaint are that complainant Girjesh Bhargava, Agriculture Development Officer-cum-Notified Insecticide Inspector, Mansa, visited the premises of the dealer M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides, Bareta Mandi, Tehsil Badhlada, (Mansa) on 27.07.2016 along with Sh. Gurditta, Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa and after disclosing his identity, checked the insecticide license and stock. He took sample of Cartap Hydrochloride 4% GR Batch No.BAY1071B, manufacturing date 24.03.2015 expiry date 23.03.2017, manufactured by M/s Gharda Chemicals Limited, Mumbai from one sealed 5 kg bag of insecticide. Three test samples of insecticides were prepared as per provisions of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The samples were duly sealed. Form No. XXI was duly filled for sending the sample for testing to Government Analyst. Four copies of Form No. XX were also filled as per rules. One part of the sealed sample alongwith one duly filled and signed Form No.XX was handed over to Gurpreet Singh Proprietor of M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides, at the spot on 27.07.2016. Two sealed test samples portion of the insecticides and Form Nos.XX and XXI were presented to the Chief Agricultural Officer, Mansa, on 01.08.2016 who after checking the same, sent one sealed sample portion of the insecticides to Senior Analyst Insecticide Testing Laboratory Ludhiana, for analysis vide office Endorsement No.224 dated 01.08.2016 along with Form No.XXI duly REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 3 filled. Remaining one sealed test sample portion of the insecticide and remaining two copies of each Forms No.XX and XXI were retained. 3. The test sample was analysed and analysis report of the insecticides sample was sent vide report TA No. 249 dated 24.08.2016 to Chief Agricultural Officer, Mansa. As per analysis report, the sample had 3.67% active ingredient content of Cartap Hydrochloride instead of Cartap Hydrochloride 4% GR and was declared ‘misbranded’ under the provisions of the Act. After receiving the analysis report on 24.08.2016, the Chief Agricultural Officer, Mansa-cum-Licensing Officer, served show cause notice along with analysis report to the dealer M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides, Bareta Mandi, Tehsil Budhlada and to its Proprietor vide letter No.6255-56 dated 05.10.2016. The dealer, through its Proprietor submitted reply to the show cause notice dated 05.10.2016, which was received on 12.10.2016 in the office of Chief Agricultural Officer Mansa. The dealer acknowledged the sample taken and submitted the purchase bill along with reply. Chief Agricultural Officer, Mansa-cum-Licensing Officer, again served show cause notice to the dealer M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides and to its Proprietor vide letter dated 07.11.2016 to explain the matter by appearing personally in the office on 17.11.2016. The dealer firm M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides submitted reply on 11.11.2016 in response to the show cause notice and requested for getting the reference sample retested from Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad at their cost. The dealer firm was accordingly directed vide letter dated 14.12.2016 to get the reference sample retested by filing an application under Section 24(4) of the Act before the Court. 4. It is further complainant's case that Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa, served show cause notices to the responsible persons of REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 4 manufacturing and suppliers of Company M/s Gharda Chemicals Ltd. regarding the failure of the sample and violation of Sections 3K (1), 17, 18, 33 of the Act. Copy of the show cause notice dated 15.12.2016 was served on the responsible officials of the company. The Manufacturing Company M/s Gharda Chemicals Ltd. submitted its reply on 28.12.2016, in response to the show cause notice expressing dissatisfaction with the analysis report of Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana and requested for getting the reference sample portion retested from Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad. After considering the reply of the dealer firm, Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa, cancelled its insecticides licence which was valid upto 31.12.2016, on account of failure of the sample and violation of Sections 3K (1), 17, 18, 33 of the Act. 5. In appeal filed by M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides, the cancellation order was stayed, till the receipt of the re-analysis result of the sample. M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides, filed application on 03.04.2017 under Section 24(4) of the Act, before the Court requesting for re-testing of the reference sample. Reference sample could not be sent for re-analysis as shelf life of the sample expired on 23.03.2017. After receiving the consent/sanction under Section 31(1) of the Act from Joint Director of Agriculture (Plant Protection), Punjab SAS Nagar, prosecution was launched for violation of provisions of Section 31(1) of the Act, against the dealer M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides, its Proprietor and responsible person Gurpreet Singh and the Manufacturer M/s Gharda Chemicals Ltd., its Director and responsible persons. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint and summoning order dated 06.06.2019 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Budhlada, qua the manufacturing company, its Director and REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 5 responsible persons was liable to be set aside, being violative of Section 24(4) of the Act. It is argued that after receiving show cause notice dated 15.12.2016, the functionaries of the manufacturing company, vide letter dated 02.01.2017 sought retesting of the sample. However, the respondents did not respond to the request of the manufacturing company which amounted to infringement of its right to get the sample retested before its expiry. In view of Section 24(3) of the Act, even the manufacturer was entitled to an opportunity for re-analysis of the sample from Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad. Respondents failed to discharge their duties under the Act, to get the sample retested, although they were well aware that the sample was to expire on 23.03.2017. The complaint was filed on 06.06.2019 when the sample had already expired. The manufacturer having been denied the opportunity of retesting of the sample and to controvert the finding of the Senior analyst Insecticides Laboratory, Ludhiana, Punjab, the complaint as well as summoning order deserved to be quashed. It was further argued that there was violation of Section 24(2) of the Act as well as the complainant did not issue show cause notice to the manufacturer company and show cause notice Annexure P-6 was only issued to the Director and the responsible persons. Thus, the complaint and the summoning order dated 06.06.2019 against the manufacturer, its Director and responsible persons deserved to be quashed. To support his arguments, he referred to M/s Northern Minerals Ltd. And others Versus Rajasthan Govt. and another, 2016 AIR (SC) 2543 and M/s Northern Minerals Ltd. And others Versus Union of India 2010(3) RCR (Criminal),763. REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 6 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides and its Proprietor too were not liable to be prosecuted as the samples were drawn from sealed bag of 5 kg and there was nothing to show that the bag was not properly stored by the licensed dealer or at the time of taking of the sample, the bags were not properly sealed. In this context, reference has been made to M/s Rallis India Limited and others Versus State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector, CRM-M-20338 of 2017, decided on 20.04.2022. 8. Reply to the petition has been filed by State of Punjab by way of affidavit of Gijresh Bhargava, Agriculture Development Officer-cum- Insecticide Inspector, Mansa. On the strength of the reply furnished, learned State counsel submits that well before the expiry date of sample of insecticides i.e. on 05.10.2016, respondent No.2 had intimated the dealer M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides, from whom the sample was taken to get reference sample retested by filing an application under Section 24(4) before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Budhlada. The dealer firm filed the application before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Budhlada, only on 03.04.2017, after expiry of shelf life, thus the sample could not be sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad for retesting. No valuable right of the dealer was infringed. Show cause notice was also served on the Director and responsible officials of the manufacturing company alongwith a copy of analysis report and reply of the manufacturing company was received on 28.12.2016. The manufacturing Company was represented by its Director and responsible persons who did not show any intention under Section 24(3) of the Act nor applied for retesting of the referring sample. Thus, petitioners lost the valuable right to REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 7 get the sample retested. The complaint under Sections 3K (1), 17, 18, 33 of the Act was legally valid and the summoning order was issued as per law. No prejudice was caused to the petitioners, even though the complaint was filed on 06.06.2019 after expiry of the date of the sample. 9. To appreciate the submissions made, a reference to the provisions of Sections 22 and 24 of the Act is necessitated. The same are extracted hereunder: 22. Procedure to be followed by Insecticide Inspectors.—(1) Where an Insecticide Inspector seizes any record, register or document under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 21, he shall, as soon as may be, inform a Magistrate and take his orders as to the custody thereof. (2) Where an Insecticide Inspector takes any action under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 21— (a) he shall use all dispatch in ascertaining whether or not the insecticide or its sale, distribution or use contravenes any of the provisions of section 18 and if it is ascertained that the insecticide or its sale, distribution or use does not so contravene, forthwith revoke the order passed under the said clause or, as the case may be, take such action as may be necessary for the return of the stock seized; (b) if he seizes the stock of the insecticide he shall, as soon as may be, inform a Magistrate and take his orders as to the custody thereof; (c) without prejudice to the institution of any prosecution, if the alleged contravention be such that the defect may be remedied by the possessor of the insecticide, he shall, on being satisfied that the defect has been so remedied, forthwith revoke his order and in case where the Insecticide Inspector has seized the stock of insecticide, he shall, as soon as may be, inform a Magistrate and obtain his orders as to the release thereof. 1 [(3) Where an Insecticide Inspector takes any sample of an insecticide, he shall issue a receipt therefor stating therein that the fair price of such sample shall be tendered if the sample, after test or analysis is not found to be misbranded and the Insecticide REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 8 Analyst has reported to that effect and on such price having been tendered may require a written acknowledgement therefor.] (4) 2 *** where the Insecticide Inspector seizes the stock of any insecticide under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 21, he shall tender a receipt therefor in the prescribed form. (5) Where an Insecticide Inspector takes a sample of an insecticide for the purpose of test or analysis, he shall intimate such purpose in writing in the prescribed form to the person from whom he takes it and, in the presence of such person unless he wilfully absents himself, shall divide the sample into three portions and effectively seal and suitably mark the same and permit such person to add his own seal and mark to all or any of the portions so sealed and marked: Provided that where the insecticide is made up in containers of small volume, instead of dividing a sample as aforesaid, the Insecticide Inspector may, and if the insecticide be such that it is likely to deteriorate or be otherwise damaged by exposure shall, take three of the said containers after suitably marking the same and, where necessary, sealing them. (6) The Insecticide Inspector shall restore one portion of a sample so divided or one container, as the case may be, to the person from whom he takes it and shall retain the remainder and dispose of the same as follows:— (i) one portion or container, he shall forthwith send to the Insecticide Analyst for test or analysis; and (ii) the second, he shall produce to the court before which proceedings, if any, are instituted in respect of the insecticide. xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 24. Report of Insecticide Analyst.—(1) The Insecticide Analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis under sub-section (6) of section 22, shall, within a period of 1 [thirty] days, deliver to the Insecticide Inspector submitting it a signed report in duplicate in the prescribed form. (2) The Insecticide Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and shall retain the other copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the sample. (3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by an Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein, and REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 9 such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken has within twenty-eight days of the receipt of a copy of the report notified in writing the Insecticide Inspector or the court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. (4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory, where a person has under sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of the Insecticide Analyst‟s report, the court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or of the accused, cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the magistrate under sub-section (6) of section 22 to be sent for test or analysis to the said laboratory, 2 [which shall, within a period of thirty days, make the test or analysis] and report in writing signed by, or under the authority of, the Director of the Central Insecticides Laboratory the result thereof, and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. (5) The cost of a test or analysis made by the Central Insecticides Laboratory under sub-section (4) shall be paid by the complainant or the accused, as the court shall direct. 10. The legal position that under Section 24(4) of the Act, an accused other than a person from whom sample is taken also has a right to seek re-testing of the sample and adduce evidence in contraversion of the report of the insecticide analyst, is now well settled. 11. In M/s Northern Minerals Ltd. And others Versus Rajasthan Govt. and another, 2016 AIR (SC) 2543, the Apex Court ruled as under: “....................we have no hesitation to conclude, that insofar as the person from whom the sample was taken, the right to raise an objection is circumscribed by requiring him to indicate his intention to do so within 28 days of the receipt of the copy of the report. There is however no such limitation of time placed by the legislature on the complainant and/or the other accused proceeded against. In the above view of the matter, insofar as the present appeal is concerned, we find, that a vital right vested in the appellants/accused to get the REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 10 sample re-tested (from the Central Insecticides Laboratory), to controvert the report of analysis of the sample obtained by the Insecticide Inspector, stood frustrated. The appellants have lost the right to disprove their guilt. The appellants cannot be proceeded against, when they have, for no fault of their own, lost a vital right of defence. We are satisfied to conclude, that under sub-Section (4) of Section 24 of the Act, an accused other than a person from whom the sample is taken, also has a right to adduce evidence in controversion of the Insecticide Analysit's Report, and in case the accused avail of the above right under sub-Section (4) of Section 24, he must bear the expenses of the test or analysis, to be made by the Central Insecticides Laboratory (under sub-Section 5 of Section 24)” 12. Undisputed facts of the case with relevant dates are illustrated in tabular form as under: Date 27.07.2016 Sample of insecticide was drawn from the premises of dealer M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides, Bareta Mandi, District Mansa. 24.08.2016 Report of the Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana was received declaring the sample of insecticide misbranded. 05.10.2016 A Show cause notice was issued to dealer M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides, Mansa along with a copy o the Senior Analyst report. 14.10.2016 The dealer M/s Kirpa Pesticides, Mansa filed reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. 07.11.2016 The dealer was issued letter affording personal hearing on 17.11.2016. 15.12.2016 Show cause notice was issued to the functionaries of the manufacturing firm along with a copy of report of Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana. 02.01.2017 Functionaries of the manufacturing company filed their reply with request for retesting. 02.07.2018 The Joint Director, Agriculture (Plants Protection), SAS Nagar accorded sanction for prosecuting the petitioners as well as the other accused. REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 11 06.06.2019 The Insecticide Inspector instituted a complaint against the petitioners and the same day summoning order was passed. 13. The facts above make it evident that the dealer M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides, did not, within the time lines provided by Section 24(3) of the Act (28 days on receipt of copy of report) notify in writing to the Insecticide Inspector that it intended to adduce evidence in contraversion of the report or that it intended to have the sample re-analysed. The dealer merely submitted reply to the show cause notice, without expressing such intention whereafter letter was issued by the complainant for personal hearing on 07.11.2016. It was only on 11.11.2016 that a request was made by the dealer that the sample be got retested from authorised laboratory. The plea that the dealer lost its valuable right of getting the sample retested is therefore, not available to M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides. 14. Be that as it may, it was not before 15.12.2016 that Chief Agricultural Officer, Mansa, addressed a communication to the Director and responsible persons of manufacturing firm M/s Gharda Chemicals Ltd., requiring an explanation why legal action should not be lauched against them, informing them about the testing of the sample by Senior Analyst Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana and the report of ‘misbranding’ in respect of percentage of the active ingredients. In response thereto, the functionaries of manufacturing firm addressed communication dated 28.12.2016 requesting for re-testing of the samples, which evoked no response or action from the complainant’s side. REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 12 15. At this juncture, observations of Apex Court in M/s Northern Minerals Ltd. And others Versus Union of India 2010(3) RCR (Criminal),763, need to be referred: 22. From the language and the underlying object behind Section 24(3)and (4) of the Act as also from the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, we are of the opinion that mere notifying the intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of the Insecticide Analyst confers on the accused the right and clothes the court with the jurisdiction to send the sample for analysis by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and an accused is not required to demand in specific terms that the sample be sent for analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. In our opinion the mere intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report, implies demand to send the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory for test and analysis. 23. Section 24(3) of the Act gives right to the accused to rebut the conclusive nature of the evidence of the Insecticide Analyst by notifying its intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report before the Insecticide Inspector or before the court where proceeding in respect of the samples is pending. Further, the court has been given power to send the sample for analysis and test by the Central Insecticides Laboratory of its own motion or at the request of the complainant or the accused. 24. No proceeding was pending before any court when the accused was served with the Insecticide Analyst's Report, the intention was necessarily required to be conveyed to the Insecticide Inspector, which was so done by the appellant and in this background the Insecticide Inspector was obliged to institute complaint forthwith and produce the sample and request the court to send the sample for analysis and test to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. The appellant did whatever was possible for it. Its right has been defeated by not REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 13 sending the sample for analysis and report to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. 25. It may be mentioned herein that shelf life of the insecticides had expired even prior to the filing of the complaint. The position therefore which emerges is that by sheer inaction the shelf life of the sample of insecticides had expired and for that reason no step was possible to be taken for its test and analysis by the Central Insecticides Laboratory. A valuable right of the appellant having been defeated, we are of the opinion that allowing this criminal prosecution against the appellant to continue shall be futile and abuse of the process of court. 27. It is interesting to note that Section 24(3)and (4) of the Act oblige the Insecticide Analyst and the Central Insecticides Laboratory to make the test and analysis and report within thirty days. When 30 days is good enough for report, there does not seem any justification not to lodge complaint within 30 days, from the receipt of the intimation from the accused and getting order for sending the sample for test and analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. All who are entrusted with the implementation of the provisions of the Act, would be well advised to act with promptitude and adhere to the time schedule, so that innocent persons are not prosecuted and real culprits not left out.” 16. In the case before us as well, after receiving request for re- analysis on 02.01.2017 (before the expiry date of the insecticide), the respondents did not institute the complaint within reasonable time and the complaint was instituted only on 06.06.2019 after more than 2-1/2 years of the request submitted by functionaries of manufacturing Company for re- testing. By the time the complaint was filed, the insecticide had expired and therefore, application under Section 24(4) to the Court could not have been made, for test and re-analysis of the sample by the Central Insecticides Laboratory. A valuable right of the manufacturing company having been REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 14 defeated, prosecution against the company and its officer cannot be allowed to proceed. 17. It would be apposite now to refer to Section 30 of the Act, which reads 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 ingredient 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 (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.’ REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 15 18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v. Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur and another (1990) SCC (Criminal) 623, held as under : - “4. The High Court took the view that by enacting sub- section (1) of Section 30 of the Act, Parliament had taken out the element of mens rea from consideration and, therefore, knowledge was not at all material. Appellant's counsel has argued that protection of sub-section (3) is available not only to prosecutions but also to every contravention of the Act and cancellation of licence for contravention of the Act is also a matter covered by sub- section (3). We are inclined to accept the submission and take the view that whether it is prosecution or contravention leading to cancellation, sub-section (3) applies. In that view of the matter, on the facts found that it was a full tin in a sealed condition, the liability arising out of misbranding was not of the appellant. Unless he had any other source of information about misbranding – and it has not been established – the appellant is entitled to the protection of (sic) appellant's contention that it was a sealed tin intact has been found, the burden that lay on him under the provisions of subsection (3) had been satisfactorily discharged, even in the matter of considering the question of cancellation of licence and, therefore, his licence should not have been cancelled. We allow the appeal, reverse the order of the High Court and the authorities and restore the licence. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.” 19. The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court has been followed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court. REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 16 20. In Lochen Kheti Sewa Centre Vs. State of Punjab, 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 22, it was observed as under:- 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has very fairly stated that the petitioner is not the manufacturer. The sample was drawn from sealed packets and there is no material to indicate that it was properly stored. Under the circumstances the petitioner cannot be held liable for misbranding of the insecticide. Only the manufacturer, who is being proceeded against would be responsible. 21. This Court in the matter of Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 211 held as under:- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a licensee under Insecticide Act, 1968 to deal with various kinds of insecticides and pesticides of registered and approved manufacturers. It has further been clarified that the petitioner sells only sealed and packed insecticides/pesticides. A sample of insecticide that has been manufactured by a company approved by Government of Punjab was drawn on 25.05.2001. The sample was drawn from originally sealed and packed container. In above regards, learned counsel has referred to para No.3 of the petition which is extracted hereunder: “3. That as per complainant version on 25.05.2001, he drew a sample of one insecticide i.e. Metalyax 8% + Mancozeb 64% EC bearing Batch No.KG-09, Mfg. November, 2000 and Expiry October, 2002 out of two 500 gms. Originally sealed and packed containers lying properly from the shop premises of the petitioner-firm as manufactured by M/s. Fungicide India Ltd. Jammu. The said manufacturing company i.e. M/s REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 17 Fungicide Ltd. Jammu is the registered and authorised manufacturing company by Govt. of Punjab to sell its products in the State of Punjab” 3. Learned counsel states that it is admitted case of the respondents that sample was drawn from sealed and packed container. In this regard, learned counsel has referred to Para No.3 of the reply on merits which reads as under:- 3. That the contents of para No.3 of the petition are matter of record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has a licence to sell insecticides and pesticides manufactured by companies approved by Government of India and Government of Punjab. It is further not in dispute that the sample that has been drawn has been manufactured by approved manufacturer. There is no material available on the file to indicate that the insecticide was stored in violation of rules. It is also the admitted position that sample was drawn from originally sealed and packed containers. 6. In view of the above, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the petitioner who is merely selling the insecticide had no occasion to tamper with the contents of the container/insecticide. 7. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would he abuse of process of law and abuse of process of Court. The petitioners being only involved in sale of insecticide, cannot be held responsible for the contents of the container from which the sample has been drawn. 22. This Court has further in the matter of Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 202 held as under:- 7.It is evident from above that sample was taken from original packing. REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 18 8.Affidavit dated 06.12.2010 of S Navtej Singh, Insecticide Inspector, District Kapurthala has been filed. Para 1 of the said affidavit reads under:- “1. Original packing as per Form XX refers to the stock in possession of accused, which at the time of sampling is in a sealed condition which is purported to be same as packed, lebelled and sealed by the manufacturer. Although, it is stated in the subsequent paragraph that it is yet to be determined whether the insecticide in question (Monocrotophos 36% SL of one liter each) was in original sealed packing or as to whether the sealed packing was tampered with or not, the allegation in the complaint and Form No. XX speaks for themselves. There is no doubt left that the sample was drawn from the originally sealed and packed containers weighing one liter and packed by the registered and authorized manufacturing company. There is no allegation that in the said complaint that the said seal was tampered with or the originally packing was tampered with. There is no allegation that the said sample was not stored in the same state. (.....) 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed. Complaint No. 79 dated 02.03.2007 under sections 3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 read with rules 27 (5) of the Insecticides Rules 1971 titled as State v M/s Punjab Khad Store and others pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala and summoning order and all REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 19 consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners are hereby quashed 23. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Rallis India Limited and others Versus State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector (supra) too has held that the marketing agency/licensed dealer cannot be held vicariously liable and penalised for misbranding of a product where they were not involved in the manufacturing process at all, merely for having traded in the same when the sample was drawn from a sealed package and was properly stored. 24. As per admitted case, M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticidies was the dealer duly licensed to sell, stock, exibit for sale or distribution of insecticides. The sample was taken on 27.07.2016. Its license was valid upto 31.12.2016. The samples were drawn from 5 kgs original sealed bag of insecticides Cartap Hydrochloride 4% GR bearing Batch No.BAY1071B, manufacturing date 24.03.2015 and expiry date 23.03.2017, manufactured by M/s Gharda Chemicals Limited, Mumbai. 25. The dealer M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticidies, vide its reply dated 14.10.2016 to the show cause notice (on record as Annexure P-4) conveyed to the Chief Agricultural Officer, as below: 1. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx. 2. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx. 3. That the insecticides in question namely (Kraft) Cartap Hydrochloride 4% GR purchased from Gharda Chemicals Ltd. C/o Baba ji Agencies 10th mile stone, Bahinda-Goniana Road, Village: Bhokara Bathinda. Regd. Office: 48, Hill Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai-400050. VIDE their invoice NoSAL/P/0117/1617 dtd. 14-04-2016 (Photo stat copy of the bill enclosed) and the same material was duly entered in our REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 20 duly certified stock register in the Folio no. 4 (Photo stat copy of the front page and folio no. 4 of stock register enclosed). 4. The said insecticides is manufactured by Gharda Chemicals Ltd. duly licenced manufacturer having their sales permission for the state of Punjab granted by Director of Agricultureal (Punjab)Chandigarh. 5. That Sh. Girjesh Bhagrav the insecticides Inspector Mansa drawn the sample of the above product on 27-07-2016 from original pack of 5KG packing, with originally sealed in intact condition containing a declaration by the said manufacturturer that the active ingredient contents are in conformity and same as mentioned on the outside of the the pack (Photocopy of the bill enclosed). 6. That I not being the manufacturer could not with reasonable diligence ascertained that the said insecticide was sub standard as alleged by your goodself in the show cause notice and test report. The insecticides in question was properly stored and remained in the same State as and when it was purchased from the concerned manufacturer through the said authorized distributors. Thus, we cannot be held liable for the fault on the part of the manufacturer, as provided in accordance with section 60(3) of the said act. The licencee being a licence holder is procted under section 30(3) of the act, it is clear that the licencee for the purposes, of selling insecticides cannot be held liable even if the sample is not found conformity with ISI specification. The licencee is neither an improter, nor a manufacturer of the insecticides or his agent but is a licence holder for the purpose of selling insecticides. Contents of Annexure P4 sent by the dealer have not been disputed. 26. It has not been alleged anywhere in the complaint that the sample was not properly stored in accordance with the provision contained in the Insecticides Acts and Rules framed thereunder nor it is alleged that the REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 21 sealed bag was not kept in the same state as when acquired after purchase by M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticidies. There is no allegation that the invoice vide which the insecticide was purcahsed by the dealer firm from the manufacturing firm, was not genuine. M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticidies, being the dealer, thus could not be said to be responsible for the quality of the product or for ensuring the labelled ingredients or for misbranding of the insecticides purchased from and manufactured by M/s Gharda Chemicals Ltd. 27. Petitioners, the manufacturing company, its Director, representatives and the dealer, its Proprietor, thus cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Sections 3K (1), 17, 18, 33 of Insecticide Act, 1968. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against them would not serve the ends of justice. 28. The petitions are allowed. Complaint No.13 of 2019 titled ‘State Versus M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides and others’ pending before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Budhlada, order dated 06.06.2019 summoning the petitioners to face trial under Sections 3K (1), 17, 18, 33 of Insecticide Act, 1968, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) 01.08.2026 JUDGE reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No REEMA SAINI 2026.08.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh