Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Suminova Agri Science – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
Judgment :
Yashvir Singh Rathor, J.
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 173, prayer has been made to quash complaint case No.33 dated 26.07.2019 titled as “State vs M/s Quality Mill Store and others” under Sections 3 (k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') read with Rule 27 (5) of Insecticides Rules, 1971 pending in the Court of learned Sub Judicial Magistrate, Khanna. District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1), apart from the summoning order dated 27.06.2019 (Annexure P-2) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22.05.2017, Insecticide Inspector, Khanna, District Ludhiana, visited the shop/premises of one dealer-firm namely M/s Quality Mill Store, Samrala Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana and after making necessary statutory compliances, he drew sample of Insecticide namely, Fipronil 0.3% GR manufactured by M/s Vikas Organic Ind. Corporation, Faridkot; and marketed by M/s Suminova Agri Science, Kotkapura. Out of three samples collected by the Insecticide Inspector, one sample was sent to the State Insecticide Tes
A retailer or marketing firm is not liable for misbranding if the insecticide was sold in sealed packaging and there is no evidence of their knowledge regarding the misbranding.
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....
Dealers cannot be held responsible for misbranding under the Insecticides Act when the samples were drawn from sealed containers and there was no evidence of tampering.
Distributors and dealers cannot be held liable for misbranding if the insecticide was received and sold in its original sealed condition.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of limitation for filing a complaint under the Insecticides Act commences from the date of receipt of the analyst's report, and the....
Delay in prosecution unjustly denies manufacturers the right to evidence, leading to quashing of complaints against directors lacking direct involvement in misbranding offenses.
The court emphasized the strict adherence to statutory provisions regarding the timeline for re-testing under the Insecticides Act, asserting that non-compliance invalidates the complaint.
Delay in filing a complaint under the Insecticides Act beyond the statutory period of limitation can result in misuse of the process of law and prejudice the defense of the accused, leading to the qu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
