Retailers cannot be held liable under the Insecticides Act for misbranding unless they have knowledge or direct involvement; liability requires specific allegations linking the accused to the offense.

JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) filed under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 & 33 of the INSECTICIDES ACT , 1968 (hereafter referred to as the Act) and Rule 10(4) of the INSECTICIDES RULES , 1971, punishable under Section 29 of the Act; and the summoning order dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa.

2. The allegations as set out in the complaint, may be summarized as follows:

On 19.01.2022, Insecticides Inspector, Sahil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the Inspector) inspected the premises of M/s Atla Kheti Sewa Center, Joga Bhikhi, District Mansa (hereinafter referred to as the firm). During the inspection, he collected a sample of insecticide, namely, Clodinafop-Propargyl 15% WP, bearing Batch No. LLS-200902, manufacturing date 02.09.2020, expiry dated 01.09.2022, allegedly manufactured by M/s Leeds Lifescience Private Limited, VPO Fatehgarh, Tehsil Naaingarh, District Ambala (hereinafter referred to as the manufacturing Company) and supplied by M/s Parijat Industries Private Limited, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as the supplier Company).

3. The sample was drawn in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the Act and was sent for analysis to the Senior Analyst, Insecticide Quality Control Laboratory, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the Amritsar Laboratory). The test report received on 10.02.2022, declared the sample to be misbranded.

4. Upon obtaining the necessary sanction from the competent authority, the complaint was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa. Vide order dated 27.02.2023, all accused, including the present petitioners, were summoned to face trial.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the summoning order is legally unsustainable as the complaint itself fails to make out any prima facie case against them. It is argued that:

(i) the petitioners were neither the manufacturers nor the importers of the alleged misbranded insecticides. Being merely retailers, they had no role in the manufacturing or quality control of the product;

(ii) the insecticide sample was drawn from a sealed and intact container, and there are no allegations of tampering. In the absence of any knowledge or means to ascertain misbranding, the petitioners cannot be held liable under the Act;

(iii) reliance has been placed upon M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar vs. Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozpur , 1990 (Supp) SCC 11, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a dealer cannot be held liable under the Act when the product is received in a sealed condition, unless it is shown that he had knowledge of its misbranding;

(iv) further reliance has been placed upon State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Rajiv Khurana , 2010 (3) RCR (Criminal) 912, to argue that in the absence of specific allegations attributing a direct role to the accused in the commission of the offence, mechanical summoning order cannot be sustained.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE STATE

6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer and submissions by arguing that:

(i) the petitioners were actively engaged in the sale of a misbranded insecticide and, therefore, cannot feign ignorance;

(ii) the Act imposes strict liability, and compliance with the provisions governing the sale of insecticides is mandatory. The petitioners failed in their duty by dea