JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of criminal complaint bearing No. COMA/2/2018 dated 01.02.2018 registered under Sections 3k(1), 17, 18, 29, 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 titled as 'State of Punjab vs. M/s Kissan Pesticides, Andana and others' as well as summoning order dated 01.02.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Briefly, the facts, as alleged, are that on 31.07.2013, the Insecticide Inspector visited the premises of M/s Kissan Pesticides, Andana, District, Sangrur and drew samples of Chloropyriphos 20% E.C. manufactured by the petitioner. Post analysis, the said chemical was found misbranded, which resulted in institution of complaint(supra).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the complaint(supra) was launched without obtaining the requisite sanction, which is mandatory in nature. Moreover, the complaint has been registered against the petitioner, that is a company, without arraying any officials therein. Further, it is contended that the sample was drawn on 31.07.2013 while the complaint(supra) was filed on 01.02.2018. As such, the learned trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance of the same owing to the bar on the ground of limitation provided by Section 468 Cr.P.C. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Sanjay Kumar 1998 AIR SC 1919 and this Court in M/s Kheti Sew Centre vs. State of Punjab 2003(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 310, Sunil Chaudhary and another vs. State of Punjab 2002(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 715, S.C. Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab and another 1990(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 702, K.G. Papu and another vs. State of Punjab 1996(1)R.C.R. (Criminal) 795, G.V. Devashyam vs. State of Haryana CRM-M-6321-1994 decided on 26.04.2002, K.N. Dwivedi vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-4321-2007 decided on 02.11.2007 and Sant Lal Surekha vs. State of Punjab 2009(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 981.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the sample drawn by the concerned Insecticide Inspector were analysed and the same were found to be misbranded by Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amritsar on 12.08.2013. A reanalysis by Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Faridabad on 07.11.2014 demonstrated the same result. As such, criminal proceeding ought to continue against the petitioner, being a manufacturer. However, he could not controvert the fact that the requisite sanction was not obtained prior to launching prosecution in the present case.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the samples were drawn 31.07.2013. They were sent for chemical analysis and the first report was obtained on 12.08.2013, however, the complaint(supra) was filed on 01.02.2018, after about 4.5 years.

6. The offence under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act lays down the offences and punishments qua the same. Since the petitioner is facing allegations of misbranding, the maximum punishment that can be awarded, as per Section 29(1) (a) of the Insecticide, Act to it, if found guilty, is 02 years, for a first time offender, and 03 years for a repeat offender. As such, according to Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C., the concerned Court is barred to take cognizance of the same after 03 years. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sara Mathew vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Disease and Others 2014(14) RCR Criminal 10, wherein it has been categorically held that for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., the relevant date would be the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Ma