JUDGMENT

Aman Chaudhary, J.

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the Complaint Case No.92 dated 05.01.2018, Annexure P-1 registered for violation of Sections 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 v. M/s Kissan Fertilizers and others" as pending adjudication in the Court of Ld. CJM, Patiala and summoning order dated 05.01.2018, Annexure P-2 alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners.

2. Briefly put, facts as emerge from the case are that petitioner No.1 is the proprietor of the petitioner No.2-firm, while petitioner No.3 is an ex-employee. The firm is a registered manufacturer of various kinds of insecticides and pesticides having a valid license in this regard from the appropriate authority under the INSECTICIDES ACT . It has a lab, fitted with modern equipment of testing in the factory premises, wherein each and every lot of material as manufactured is tested before it is sent out for sale in the market, leaving no scope for the product to be mis-branded. However, a raid was conducted at the premises of dealer of the petitioner-firm on 13.07.2012 by Insecticide Inspector who drew a sample of insecticide, namely Cartap Hydrochloride 4% GR Batch No.GCC105, having date of manufacturing as May 2012 with an expiry of 2 years. One part of the sample was sent to Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory Ludhiana for its analysis on 16.07.2012 i.e., after a period of 3 days of drawing of the sample. As per the public analyst report dated 30.07.2012 the sample was found to be mis-branded having an active ingredient content of 2.44% as against 4%. The Department instituted a complaint for violation of Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the INSECTICIDES ACT on 05.01.2018, wherein a notice was issued vide order of even date for 17.02.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the complaint is liable to be quashed since it had been instituted on 05.08.2018 i.e., after 5 years 5 months and 6 days of the first report of public analyst dated 30.07.2012, thereby exceeding the limitation period of three years provided to take cognizance under Section 468 Cr.P.C. He relies on judgment of Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India in the case of Cheminova India Limited and another v. State of Punjab and another, (2021) 8 SCC 818, and judgment of this Court in Sher Singh and another v. State of Punjab , CRM-M-17705 of 2018 decided on 05.02.2019 .

4. Learned State counsel would submit that an application had been filed by the Department under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT for condonation of delay in filing the complaint on the ground that in order to file the same, a written consent/approval under section 31(1) of the INSECTICIDES ACT was required, which was received on 01.11.2017. He submits that the request to grant sanction to file a complaint was submitted on 13.08.2015, and the same was granted vide order dated 01.11.2017 by the competent authority. The complaint thereafter was filed on 05.01.2018. The aforesaid period for awaiting report as well as the time taken for receiving the sanction has to be excluded while computing the period of limitation as per Section 470 (3) Cr.P.C. He further submits that a combined reading of the aforesaid provisions of law and the judgments would make it apparent that the period of limitation begins from the receipt of the report of the analyst i.e., three years from the said date. However, the time spent in obtaining sanction is to be excluded therefrom.

5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that firstly the application seeking condonation of delay ought to have been filed under Section 473 Cr.P.C., it being criminal proceedings, whereas the application filed by the State was under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , thus was not maintainable. He further submits that even otherwise referring to the contents