The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the limitation period for launching prosecution under the Insecticides Act, 1968, and the exclusion of time for obtaining consent or sanction, as well as the liability of dealers/marketers for misbranding.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This order shall dispose of two petitions as titled above, arising out of the same complaint. Facts are noticed from CRM-M-20742-2018 (O&M), as reply by the respondent has been filed only therein.

2. By way of these petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made to quash complaint case No.1 dated 09.01.2018 titled as “State v. M/s Wadhwa Agro Centre & Others” under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, pending for adjudication in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P-1), apart from the summoning order dated 09.01.2018 (Annexure P-2) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners.

2. As it emerges on perusal of the paper book that on 11.07.2012, Insecticide Inspector, Bassi Pathana, visited the premises of M/s Wadhwa Agro Centre, Old Anaj Mandi, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib [petitioner N: 2 in CRM-M-6331-2018] . Petitioner N: 1 the said petition is the proprietor of petitioner N: 2. After making necessary statutory compliances, he drew a sample of insecticide Cartap Hydrochloride 4% GR (Boregan), Batch No. MA20322CA, with manufacturing date as 23rd March, 2012 and expiry date as 22nd March, 2014, manufactured by M/s Agri Care, 228, GIDC Estate, Panoli (Gujarat); and marketed by M/s Makhteshim Agan India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad [[petitioner N: 1 in CRM-M-20742-2018, whereas petitioners N: 2 to 4 are the representatives thereof]. Out of three samples collected by the Insecticide Inspector, one of them was sent to the State Insecticide Testing Lab, Amritsar on 12.07.2012. The report of the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amritsar dated 17.07.2012 was received, as per which sample was found to be mis-branded. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued by the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Fatehgarh sahib to the petitioners and at their request, reference sample portion was sent to Central Insecticide Testing Lab, Faridabad. Vide re-test report, sample was again found to be mis-branded. After obtaining necessary sanction from the competent authority, complaint was filed on 09.01.2018 to prosecute the dealer, marketing company as well as manufacturer and their representatives under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 of the Act. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide order dated 09.01.2018 ordered summoning of all the accused to face prosecution.

3. (i) Although the Complaint as well as summoning order have been assailed by the petitioners i.e., the dealer (M/s Wadhwa Agro Centre) as well as the marketing company (M/s Makhteshim Agan India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad) and their respective representatives on various grounds, but before this court, ld. Counsel has confined his arguments to the main contention that complaint in question is barred by limitation, as all the alleged offences under the Act are punishable under Section 29 of the Act up to two years imprisonment and so, as per mandatory provision of Section 468 Cr.P.C., the limitation to launch prosecution is three years, but in the present case, the impugned complaint has been instituted after a delay of 5 years, 5 months and 23 days from the date of receipt of the Public Analyst report and so, being hopelessly barred by limitation, the same is not maintainable.

(ii) To support the contention, Ld. counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in CRM-M-3715-2023 titled as Sandeep Goyal and others Vs. State of Punjab decided on 8th May, 2023, in which reliance had been placed upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as M/s Cheminova India Ltd. and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2021(3) RCR (Crl) 750 and Sohan Singh vs. State of Punjab 2019 (2) RCR (Crl.) 314.

(iii) Ld. Counsel contends that as the case is covered by the statutory bar of limitation, so the same is liable to be quashed without any further i