Compliance with statutory provisions under the Insecticides Act is crucial for challenging complaints, and failure to request timely re-analysis of samples undermines defenses against allegations of misbranding.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

Since both these petitions derive their origin from the very complaint, besides the reliefs claimed therein are also identical, therefore, they are amenable for being decided through a common verdict.

2. In the lead petition, i.e. CRM-M-46939-2018, the petitioner No.1 is the Director of the company, namely, M/s Syngenta India Ltd., Pune (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused company'), and, petitioner No.2 is the Manager (Area Sales) of the accused company.

3. In the other petition, i.e. CRM-M-43734-2019, the petitioner is the Ex-Godown Incharge of the accused company.

4. The common reliefs, as craved by the petitioners, in both these petitions, pertain to quashing of the impugned Complaint No.3712 dated 16.03.2018, under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1968'), read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1971'), titled as "State v. M/s Syngenta India Ltd. & Others", which is pending adjudication before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. In addition, the petitioners also seek quashing of the summoning order dated 16.03.2018 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Factual Matrix

5. The accused company is the registered manufacturer of various kinds of insecticides, fungicides and weedicides. On 10.09.2015, the Notified Insecticide Inspector, Ludhiana, conducted checking at the premises of the accused company, i.e. Godown No.104-105, Guru Gobind Singh Marg, Alamgir, Ludhiana, and, drew a sample of insecticide, namely, Quinalphos 25% EC, bearing Batch No.SPK5B016, Manufacturing date: 05.02.2015, Expiry date: 04.02.2017, Manufactured by: M/s Syngenta India Limited, Baner Road, Pune.

6. The Insecticide Inspector concerned had randomly selected three originally packed and sealed containers, each of 250 ml capacity, of the insecticide, namely, Quinalphos 25% EC, bearing Batch No.SPK5B016, marked with Code PST-20.

7. Thereafter, one sealed test sample of the insecticide (supra) was dispatched, for analysis, to Plant Protection Adviser, Directorate of PPQ&S, Central Coding Cell, RPTL, NH-IV, Faridabad, through the Chief Agricultural Officer, Ludhiana, vide letter dated 14.09.2015. Then, this sealed test sample portion was got tested from the Incharge, Insecticides Analyst, Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh, whose report was received on 26.09.2015.

8. However, upon analysis, the sample showed 28.69% contents of Quinalphos, instead of Quinalphos 25% EC, which rendered the sample to be misbranded, under the provisions of the Act of 1968. Therefore, the Chief Agricultural Officer, Ludhiana, sent the relevant record along with analysis report, on 16.10.2015, to the Deputy Director Agriculture (LC&PP) Punjab, S.A.S. Nagar, being State Licensing Authority, which led the latter to serve show cause notices to the manufacturing accused company and to its responsible functionaries, including the petitioners, vide Office Endst. No.LCPP/ADO-2015/2583-89 dated 21.10.2015. Pursuant to issuance of show cause notices, the accused company furnished its reply on 30.10.2015.

9. However, the Deputy Director, Agriculture (LC&PP), Punjab, again served show cause notice to the accused company and its responsible functionaries, vide Office Endst.No.LCPP/ADO-2016/356-363 dated 10.02.2016, wherein, it was clarified to the latter that since they had not deposited the re-testing fee, hence, it implied that they did not want to avail the facility of getting the sample re-tested.

10. However, finding no reply from the accused company, the Deputy Director, Agriculture (LC&PP), Punjab, S.A.S Nagar, vide Office Letter No.LCPP/ADO-16/716-721 dated 11.03.2016, cancelled the licence of the accused company.

11. Thereafter, the requisite written consent/sanction, as required under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1968, for instituting prosecution against the accused company and its r