JUDGMENT :

H.S. Grewal, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of Criminal complaint bearing No.COMA/15/2018 dated 05.03.2018 titled as State of Punjab Vs. M/s. Puppy Pesticides and Others under Section 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 for violation of Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short the Act') and also summoning order dated 01.03.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on 25.03.2010, the Agricultural Development Officer, Block Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib visited the premises of the petitioner and took sample of Phorate 10% (G) granules from the original packing and after taking the sample and dividing it into three parts, one part of the sample was sent for analysis to the Insecticide Quality Control Laboratory, Amritsar. Thereafter on 29.03.2010, the said sample was found to be misbranded and on the basis of the said report, the present complaint dated 27.02.2018 was brought in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and consequently on 01.03.2018, summoning orders were issued to the petitioners. He further contends that it is an admitted fact that the sample drawn was from the Dealer i.e. from the Company's original packing as the petitioner is not the manufacturer. The petitioner was selling the insecticide in sealed containers in original form as obtained from the registered manufacturer i.e. United Phosphorus Limited i.e. Vapi Gujarat through M/s. Swal Corporation Limited, Mumbai. He further contends that since the petitioner is only a dealer, he could not be prosecuted for misbranding of the sealed containers as the dealer and Distributor are not liable for misbranding of the said insecticide. The liability, if any, is on the manufacturer.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that as per provisions of Section 470 Cr.P.C, the period for obtaining sanction for prosecution from the date of its application (i.e. 10.6.2013) till the date of its grant (i.e. 07.04.2017) has to be exempted from the period of limitation. The grant of sanction for prosecution was applied to the competent authority on 10.06.2013 and the sanction for the same was accorded on 07.04.2017 which took 03 years and 10 months after it was applied for. The sanction request to the competent authority was applied for after more than a period of 03 years from the date of sample having been found to be misbranded i.e. 29.03.2010. Furthermore, the prosecution eventually was launched on 01.03.2018 after the lapse of more than 11 months from the grant of sanction from the higher authority. It is argued that even if the period of grant of sanction for prosecution from the date of its application till its grant is excluded from the period of limitation, even then also the case is found to be barred by limitation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that under Section 29 of the Insecticide Act, the maximum punishment under any section of the Insecticide Act is of imprisonment for 02 years. Therefore, as per Section 468(3) of Cr.P.C, the limitation for filing the complaint under Insecticide Act would be 03 years.

5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer made by the petitioners, by way of filing of affidavit of Satish Kumar, Insecticide Inspector, Fatehgarh Sahib dated 15.04.2024 wherein it is stated that the result of misbranding is dated 29.03.2010 and after receiving the report, show cause notice alongwith copy of test report was sent to the accused Dealer/Distributor/ Manufacturer, respectively, on different dates. Thereafter, on request of the petitioners, second sample was sent for retesting which was also found to be misbranded vide report dated 01.06.2010 as well. Subsequently, request was made to the higher competent authority for grant of sanction for instituting the comp