Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
H.S.GREWAL
Rajesh Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
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 expi
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.
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....
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.
Delay in prosecution unjustly denies manufacturers the right to evidence, leading to quashing of complaints against directors lacking direct involvement in misbranding offenses.
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
