The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the sample of insecticide is drawn from the original packing as supplied by the manufacturer to the dealer, the dealer cannot be held liable for misbranding, as per the provisions of the Insecticide Act.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition is for the quashing of criminal complaint No. 10199 dated 25.07.2018 under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rules 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971, punishable under Section 29(1) of the Act, 1968 titled as “State Vs. M/s Ekam Gulati Khetibari Sewa Centre & others’ (Annexure P-1), summoning order dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners.

2. The brief facts of the present case as emanating from the pleadings are that on 12.08.2015, the complainant visited the shop premises of petitioner No.2 i.e. M/s Ekam Gulati Khetibari Sewa Centre, Village Bhainy Doaba, P.O. Koom Kalan, Tehsil & District Ludhiana and drew a sample of insecticide, namely, Cartap Hydrochloride 4% G having Batch No.02, manufacturing date Aug-2015 and expiry date July-2017, out of one 5 kg. Originally sealed packing. That insecticide material had been manufactured and supplied by M/s Unido Insecticides Pvt. Ltd., Bahadurgarh (Haryana).

3. Thereafter, out of three representative parts of the sample, one part was sent to the Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana for analysis on 13.08.2015 and the same was found to be mis-branded after analysis.

4. On 25.07.2018, the impugned complaint was instituted by the Insecticide Inspector, Block Mangat, Distt. Ludhiana in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. Based on the said complaint, the petitioners alongwith their co-accused came to be summoned vide order dated 25.07.2018. A copy of the complaint dated 25.07.2018 and the summoning order dated 25.07.2018 are attached as Annexures P-1 and P-2 to the present petition.

5. The aforementioned complaint (Annexure P-1), summoning order dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are under challenge in the present petition qua the petitioners.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a number of grounds in the present petition. However, the primary ground raised by him is that the sample had been drawn from the original sealed packing weighing 5 kg. Thereafter, the Insecticide Inspector had prepared three loose test sample portions weighting 300 grams each. There was no allegation that the petitioners had tampered with the original sealed packing of the manufacturer. Therefore, they were not liable to be proceeded against for the mis-branding of the insecticide once they had sold the insecticide in the same condition and in the same packing in which they had received it. Protection in terms of Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 is claimed by the petitioners. Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in ‘M/s Shambu Khad Store and another versus State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector (CRM-M-5183-2021 decided on 24.04.2023)’.

As regards petitioner No.3, the learned counsel contends that he has been roped in only on account of the fact that he is the brother of petitioner No.1. In fact, no sanction for prosecution of petitioner No.3 has been accorded as per the sanction order (Annexure P-3).

7. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the case against the petitioners and their co-accused is well-established. They were at liberty to raise all the grounds as raised in the present petition at the stage of the Trial. No case for quashing of the complaint (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure P-2) was made out. He, however, concedes that, firstly, there is no denial in the reply dated 18.04.2022 to the averments raised in the petition that the samples obtained by the complainant/answering respondent was from a sealed original packing as had been supplied to the dealers/petitioners by the marketing company. He also concedes the fact that as per the aforementioned reply no sanction for prosecution has been accorded qua petitioner No.3.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the