[2026:RJ-JP:14856] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4081/2020 1. Moluram Ruhlaniyaj S/o Shri Dharam Singh, R/o VPO Tohana Road Bhunna District Fatehabad, Haryana, Director M/s Rainbow Corp Health Limited NH-73, Welcome Complex, VPO Mouli, District Panchkulla-134118 2. Harikishore Srivastva S/o Shri Roshan Lal Srivastva, R/o 75, Bahubali Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Regional Distribution Manager M/s Rainbow Corp Health Limited NH-73, Welcome Complex, VPO Mouli, District Panchkulla-134118 ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Prabhudayal Sharma, Pesticide Inspector And Agriculture Officer (Corp), Office At Assistant Director Agriculture (Extension) Dausa ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4121/2020 1. Moluram Ruhlaniya S/o Shri Dharam Singh, R/o Village And Post Tohana Road, Bhunna, Distt. Fatehabad, Haryana, Director M/s Rainbow Crop Health Limited, Nh-73, Welcome Complex, Village And Post Mouli, Distt. Panchkulla-134118 2. Harikishore Srivastva S/o Shri Roshan Lal Srivastva, R/o 75, Bahubali Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Regional Distribution Manager M/s Rainbow Crop Health Limited, Nh-73, Welcome Complex, Village And Post Mouli, Distt. Panchkulla-134118 ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Prabhudayal Sharma, Pesticide Inspector And Agriculture Officer (Crop) Office At Assistant Director Agriculture (Extension) Dausa ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:14856] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-4081/2020] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitender Mituka with Mr. Avi Airun For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Dhakar, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/04/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 01.05.2018, passed by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehwa, District Dausa in Criminal Complaint Case No. 355/2018, by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1968’). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that sample of the insecticide was taken by the Insecticide Inspector-cum- Agriculture Officer from M/s Unnat Krishi Beej Bhandar, Mehwa, District Dausa and the same was sent for analysis. After analysis of the said sample, it was found that contents of the sample were misbranded. Hence, under these circumstances the Insecticide Inspector was of the view that the seller, manufacturer and distributor have committed an offence under Section 29(1)(a) of the Act of 1968. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by the Insecticide Inspector before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Mehwa, District Dausa against the Sellers-(1) M/s Unnat Krishi Beej Bhandar, Mehwa, District Dausa; and (2) Smt. Vineeta Gupta W/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, R/o Shiv Colony, Near G.B. School, Mandawar Road Mehwa, District Dausa, [2026:RJ-JP:14856] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-4081/2020] proprietor of the aforesaid firm M/s Unnat Krishi Beej Bhandar, Mehwa, District Dausa, against the Distributors-(3) M/s Rainbow Crop Health Ltd., N.H.73, Welcome Complex Village Post Mauli, Teh. Barwala, District Panchkula (Haryana) 134118; (4) Moluram Ruhlaniya S/o Shri Dharam Singh, R/o VPO Tohana Road Bhunna District Fatehabad, Haryana, Director M/s Rainbow Corp Health Limited NH-73, Welcome Complex, VPO Mouli, District Panchkula-134118; (5) Harikishore Srivastva S/o Shri Roshan Lal Srivastva, R/o 75, Bahubali Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Regional Distribution Manager M/s Rainbow Corp Health Limited NH-73, Welcome Complex, VPO Mouli, District Panchkula-134118 so also against the Manufacturers (6) M/s Welcome Crop Health Product, Corporate House NH-73, Village post Mauli, District Panchkula (Haryana) 134118; and (7) Shri Rajkishore Yadav S/o Shri Rishal Singh, R/o 502, Village Pilakhan Kasba Nagla Niyan District Etawah (U.P.) at present Welcome Complex, VPO Mouli, District Panchkula, person responsible for quality control work M/s Welcome Crop Health Product, Corporate Office NH-73, Village post Mauli, District Panchkula, Haryana. 3. Thereafter, cognizance was taken by the Trial Court against the Sellers only i.e. proprietor of the firm M/s Unnat Krishi Beej Bhandar, Mehwa, District Dausa i.e., Smt. Vineeta Gupta, vide order dated 09.04.2018. 4. Counsel submits that on the subsequent date i.e., on 01.05.2018, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Section 29(1)(a) of the Act of 1968. Counsel submits that though a reference of an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. has been given in the impugned order for taking cognizance against [2026:RJ-JP:14856] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-4081/2020] the petitioners for the above stated offences, however, no such application was ever submitted. He further submits that law is settled that cognizance of any offence can be taken once in a case and not twice, which in the instant case has once been taken by the Trial Court on 09.04.2018 and subsequently, cognizance was again taken by the Trial Court on 01.05.2018. Hence, the subsequent order i.e., the impugned order dated 01.05.2018 is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contentions counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by this Court in cases of K.C. Meena S/o Shri Sauratyara Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan while deciding S.B. Cri. Misc. Petition No. 1118/2017 vide order dated 06.03.2025, Shodan Singh S/o Shri Ramji Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan through PP while deciding S.B. Cri. Misc. Petition No.2281/2016 vide order dated 08.11.2016 and the judgment passed by the High Court of Orissa in Bichitra Pradhan and Ors. Vs. State of Orissa and Anr. reported in 2023 SCC Online Ori 6069 and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Pal and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 306. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer and arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submits that the Magistrate is not powerless and he can always take cognizance against all the accused persons who have committed offence, which was rightly taken in the instant case on 09.04.2018. Counsel submits that cognizance was confined to M/s Unnat Krishi Beej Bhandar Mehwa, District Dausa and its proprietor Smt. Vineeta Gupta but subsequently, an application was submitted by [2026:RJ-JP:14856] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-4081/2020] the respondent No.2 under Section 190 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the present petitioners as well and the said application was rightly allowed by the learned Magistrate by passing the order impugned which does not require any interference of this Court and the instant petition is liable to be rejected. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that a complaint under Section 20 of the Act of 1968, was submitted against all the seven accused persons i.e. the sellers, the distributors and the manufacturers by the Insecticide Officer before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehwa, District Dausa. The learned Magistrate after applying its judicial mind upon the contents of the entire complaint and the allegations made therein, has taken cognizance only against M/s Unnat Krishi Beej Bhandar Mehwa, District Dausa and its proprietor Smt. Vineeta Gupta and her name has been mentioned as ‘Vineeta Sharma’ in order dated 09.04.2018 passed under Section 29(1)(a) of the Act of 1968. It appears that on the subsequent date i.e. on 01.05.2018 an application was submitted by the Public Prosecutor under Section 190 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the petitioners also and the said application was allowed and now, cognizance has also been taken against the petitioners as well under Section 29(1)(a) of the Act of 1968. Now, the question which remains for consideration of this Court is whether cognizance of an offence can be taken twice? [2026:RJ-JP:14856] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-4081/2020] 8. It is settled proposition of law, that cognizance is taken of an offence & not the offender. Though the expression “taking cognizance” is not defined but it is well settled through catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court that when the Magistrate takes notice of the accusations and applies his judicious mind to the allegations levelled in the complaint or police report or information and on being satisfied that the allegations, when being proved, would constitute an offence and he decides to initiate judicial proceedings against the alleged offender, then he is said to have taken cognizance of the alleged offence. It is essential to bear in mind the fact that cognizance is in regard to the offence & not the offender. 9. In these circumstances, the Magistrate has already applied his mind, in the instant case, on 09.04.2018 when the complaint was submitted against all the seven accused persons i.e. the sellers, the distributors and the manufacturers, but the Magistrate has taken cognizance only against the sellers & not against the distributors and the manufacturers. It appears that the learned Magistrate became wiser on the subsequent date i.e. on 01.05.2018 and this time, cognizance was taken against rest of the accused persons named in the complaint i.e. the petitioners vide impugned order dated 01.05.2018. 10. Once the cognizance has been taken on 09.04.2018, after due application of mind, another cognizance cannot be taken against the accused-petitioners on the subsequent date i.e. on 01.05.2018 in exercise of the powers contained under Section 190 Cr.P.C. Though, the Magistrate is not powerless not to proceed against the accused persons against whom cognizance has not [2026:RJ-JP:14856] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-4081/2020] been taken at the initial stage, as the stage of taking cognizance has already passed but he can very well exercise his powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., during the course of the trial, when the statements of the witnesses are recorded and if the evidence comes on the record which indicates that involvement of the left out accused persons is also present, then certainly, he can exercise his powers contained under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 11. Hence, under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 01.05.2018 is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside, while granting liberty to the Investigating Officer/Prosecution Officer to file an appropriate application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the petitioners, in case, evidence comes on record at appropriate stage of trial for proceeding against them & if such application is submitted, it is expected from the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Shivam-Puneet/14-15