JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

1. This common order shall decide all the abovementioned petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') [now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS')] seeking quashing of Complaint No.56/56-2 dated 27.01.2010 titled as 'State through Sh. Resham Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Ferozepur Vs. M/s Harish Traders and others' and the summoning order dated 27.01.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur against the petitioner(s) under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 & 33 punishable under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act').

2. The aforementioned petitions arise out of similar factual matrix, therefore, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CRM-M 38779-2011.

3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the Insecticide Inspector visited M/s Harish Traders on 28.06.2007 and took the sample of Cartap Hydrochloride 4% G manufactured by M/s Coromandel Agrico. Pvt. Ltd., Sikandrabad (U.P.) bearing Batch No.0704023, manufacturing date: April 2007, expiry date: March 2009, weighing 05 kg per packing. Three samples of 250 grams each were drawn from a package Cartap Hydrochloride 4% G, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act. Three sealed samples each comprising of 250 grams bearing seal 'II AGR FZR' were prepared on the same day i.e. 28.06.2007, in the presence of Sh. Harish Chander, proprietor of the firm and the Agriculture Officer. Out of three sealed samples, one of the sample was handed over to Harish Chander. Thereafter, the remaining two samples were submitted in the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur on 29.06.2007. One of the sample was sent to Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amritsar 03.07.2007 and the remaining sample was kept in the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur.

4. Learned counsel of the petitioner, inter alia, contends that petitioner Hemang Manhar Gandhi resigned from the Board of Directors on 03.12.2003 i.e prior to filing of the complaint {supra). Thus, he was not the Director at the time of alleged offence and therefore, he is not responsible for day to day affairs of business since he was not incharge of the business. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner, in any way, was responsible for the conduct of the business when the alleged offence was committed. Moreover, notice was never served upon the petitioner, as the address was incorrect in the complaint.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) further contends that the sample for testing was taken from the original packing, as packed by the manufacturer/marketing and there is no tampering with the packing, as the same was intact in its original form hence, the petitioner will be covered by the defence as provided under Section 30(3) of the Act. Further, there is no allegation that the petitioner(s) were selling insecticide in loose quantity or storing in an unfavourable conditions. Since the packing was done by the manufacturer, as such, there are no chances of lesser active ingredient besides adulteration. Moreover, learned counsel further submit that the petitioner(s) are not the suppliers of the insecticides on behalf of the manufacturer M/s Coromandel Agrico Pvt. Ltd.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel contends that as per the test report of Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amritsar, the sample was declared misbranded and the active ingredient was also 3.51% as opposed to 4% G. Thereafter, on the request of the dealer, a second sample was sent to Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad. However, the same was returned with the remarks that declared misbranded and the active ingredient was also 2.78% as opposed to 4% G.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that in the present case, the genesis revolves around the case set up by the r