JUDGMENT :

H.S. GREWAL, J.

1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the impugned Complaint No.3 dated 02.02.2021, under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) and Rule 10(4)(iii) of Insecticides Rules, 1971, which are punishable under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, titled as ‘State vs. M/s Chhina Agriculture Centre and Others’, which is pending adjudication in the Court of learned JMIC, Ajnala, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order dated 02.02.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by the SDJM, Ajnala, District Amritsar along with consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The case of the prosecution is based upon the complaint (Annexure P-1) given by the complainant-Bhupinder Singh, Insecticide
Inspector, Harsha Chhina, District Amritsar to the effect that on 22.07.2019, during the course of routine checking, he visited the premises of one dealer firm M/s Chhina Agriculture Centre, Ajnala Road, Adda Dalam, Block Harsha Chhina, Distt. Amritsar. He drew a sample of Fipronil 0.3% GR, bearing Batch No.PR-02319, manufacturing date 18.05.2019 and expiry date 17.05.2021, from a sealed pack of 5 kg. from which 999 grams of the insecticide was taken and divided into three equal parts of 333 grams each for the purpose of analysis. This insecticide material has been manufactured by M/s Parijat Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd., Village Ganni Khera, Rohani Ashram, VPO Fatehgarh, Tehsil Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala and alleged to be supplied by petitioner No.2 i.e. M/s SDS Ramcides Crop Science Pvt. Ltd.

3. Thereafter on 31.07.2019 i.e. after a period of ten days from the date of sampling, one part was sent to Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Bathinda for analysis which was found to be misbranded as the active ingredient contents were found to be 0.26% instead of Fipronil 0.3% GR, as per the Analysis Report dated 02.09.2019. The second sample was also found to be misbranded by the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad as the active ingredient contents were found to be 0.209% instead of Fipronil 0.3% GR.

4. Subsequent thereto, a show cause notice dated 20.09.2019 was issued by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Amritsar to Petitioner No.2/Company calling upon it to explain why action be not initiated against the Company for violation of the provisions of Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Act. Petitioner No.2/Company submitted its detailed reply which was not considered and thereafter, the impugned complaint was instituted by the
respondent against the petitioners along with the manufacturing along with marketing Company(s) and its responsible person(s) on 02.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) and as a result thereof, all were summoned to face trial vide order dated 02.02.2021 (Annexure P-2).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.2 is the registered distributor of various kinds of insecticides/pesticides and has a valid license in this regard under the Act whereas petitioners No.1 & 3 were working as Godown Incharge and Ex-Manager of the company/petitioner No.2. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not the manufacturing unit and the insecticides were being supplied/sold in sealed containers/bags in original form as obtained from the registered manufacturer i.e. M/s Parijat Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. It is also submitted that since petitioner No.2 is only a distributor/supplier, it could not be prosecuted for the same. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Cheminova India Ltd. and another versus State of Punjab and another, 2021(3) RCR (Criminal) 750 and the judgments of this Court in the cases of M/s Rallis India Limited and others versus State of Punjab Through Insecticide Inspector, bearing CRM-M-20338-2017, decided on 20.04.2022, Manoj Grover Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-4582-2008, decid