IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

143(2) cases Date of decision: 23.03.2026 CRM-M-6238-2023 SYNGENTA INDIA LTD. V/S STATE OF HARYANA CRM-M-9096-2023 MAHESH PARSHURAM SONAWANE V/S STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Rakesh Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners in both cases. Mr. B.S.Saroha, DAG, Haryana.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. This common order shall dispose of the above-mentioned petitions as they arise out of the same complaint and a common question of law arises herein.

2. Prayer made in the present petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC is for quashing complaint No.15 dated 01.02.2019, under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and summoning order dated 01.02.2019, along with all consequential proceedings.

3. Learned counsel submits that there are no allegations against the petitioners, which are the marketing Companies and their Directors, that they were responsible for quality of the product and of any connivance with the manufacturing Companies or that they have collectively packed the product which was found to be misbranded, thus, they are not authorized or responsible officer in terms of Section 30 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed in M/s Rallis India Limited and others vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-20338-2017, decided on 20.04.2022, against which no SLP was filed, wherein this Court had quashed the complaint qua the petitioners, who were marketing agents only, relevant para whereof read thus:

“22. It is evident from a perusal of the petition as well as documents appended along with the same that the undisputed case of the respondent-State is that the petitioners were a marketing agent of the insecticides. It has been repeatedly so affirmed by the respondent in various paragraphs of the complaint instituted through Insecticide Inspector and already extracted above. It is also not a subject matter o f dispute that the sample was drawn from a sealed packet a nd it is nowhere alleged that the sample had not been stored in accordance with the provisions contained under the Insecticides Act and Rules framed thereunder. There is also no allegation that the petitioners were responsible for the quality of the product as also for ensuring the labelled ingredients of the same. The petitioners are not nominated as the authorised/responsible officers in terms of Section 33 of the Insecticides Act. The statutory mandate intends to penalize a person who has committed an offence. It does not intend to prosecute the people who are merely dealing with the said product and for which they have no control as regards its quality and content. The petitioners cannot be held vicariously liable and to be penalized for misbranding of a product where they were not involved in the manufacturing process at all merely for having traded in the same. Section 3(k)(i) defines misbranding. The same relates to the label of products and its contents. It is not the case that any of t he activities referred to under section 3 (k) attracting misbranding was undertaken by the petitioners . Further, Section 17 of the Act is also not attracted against the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners are neither the importer of the misbranded insecticides, nor manufacturer thereof. Further, the ingredients of Section 18 of the Act are also not satisfied and there is no allegation that the petitioners h ad indulged in the sale of the insecticides, which was either not registered under the Act or was prohibited under Section 27. Similarly, Section 29 also would not be applicable against the petitioners inasmuch as the same contemplates punishment for offences as stated above. Once the necessary ingredients of the said Sections are not satisfied against the petitioners, they cannot be penalized for the same. 23. Having noticed the undisputed facts, the position of law as well as statutory provisions under which the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted, I find myself in ag