Judgment

Mr. Aman Chaudhary, J.

This common order shall dispose of the above-mentioned petitions, as they arise out of the same complaint, whereby the petitioners have sought quashing of the Complaint Case No.211 dated 29.11.2012, Annexure P-1 registered under Section 3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of Insecticide Rules, 1971 titled as ‘ State Vs. M/s Grewal Sidhu Khetiwari Sewa Center and others ’ and summoning order dated 29.11.2012, Annexure P-2 alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel submits that Petitioner No.2- M/s Grewal Sidhu Khetiwari Sewa Center in CRM-M-2441-2017 is an authorized dealer of M/s Saraswati Agro Chemical (India) Pvt. Ltd.,- manufacturer company, authorized to sell its products in the State of Punjab, which are marketed by M/s Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Chandigarh, while petitioners-Amarjeet Singh and Kamaljeet Singh are the partners of aforesaid dealer firm and petitioner No.3 in CRM-M-2441-2017 is the supplier of material to shopkeepers. His further submission is that from the complaint filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 29.11.2022 it is apparent that the sample was drawn by the Insecticide Inspector on 15.12.2010 from the premises of the petitioner at random from three sealed packing of Clodinofop Propargul (Weeza) 15% WP and was sent for analysis to the laboratory on 17.12.2010. The report regarding which was received on 30.12.2010, declaring the sample as being misbranded. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to petitioners on 07.01.2011 to which, a reply was submitted on 17.01.2011. The second sample was sent to the laboratory on 15.02.2011 and report whereof was received on 11.03.2011. Subsequently another show-cause notice was issued and the licence of the petitioner was cancelled, which was restored by the Appellate Authority of the Department i.e. Joint Director of Agriculture Plant Protection Punjab.

3. It is his submission that the samples were drawn from original sealed and packed containers as these facts are mentioned in para 3 of the petition, which stand admitted in the corresponding para of the reply filed by the State. Therefore, the petitioners being dealer/partners/supplier had no control over the manufacturing process of the said insecticide and thus, cannot be held liable for any misbranding thereof. He relies on the judgments passed by this Court in the case of M/s Rallies India Ltd. & others Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-20338-2017, decided 20.04.2022 and Naresh Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab , 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal) 202.

4. Learned State counsel on the other hand submits that the petitioners are liable to be prosecuted as per the provisions of Section 29 of the Act as it is not only the manufacturer, who is liable, even the stockiest is also liable. In the eventuality, it is found that the misbranded product, was not stored properly, which is a matter of trial, it would be the liability of the petitioners as well, thus, prays for the dismissal of the present petitions. He relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Gill Pesticides and another Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-27108-2016 , decided on 15.05.2018.

5. In rebuttal learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no averment made in the complaint that the product was not stored in proper condition. Still further he submits that it is the responsibility of the concerned official of the department, who took the sample to as