IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

208 Date of decision: January 10^th, 2025 Rajesh Aggarwal .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent

2. CRM-M No.49011 of 2024 Inderjit Singh and another .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present: Mr. Rakesh Verma and Mr. Manish Verma, Advocates for the petitioners.

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J .

This order shall dispose of the above-mentioned petitions filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as prayer in these petitions is for quashing of complaint No.32463/764 dated 02.12.2015 under Sections 3(K)(I), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, as well as summoning order dated 22.12.2016. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CRM-M-45058-2024.

2. Reply in CRM-M-45058-2024 by way of affidavit of Insecticide Inspector, Agriculture Bhogpur, Jalandhar, Now Agriculture Officer (Seed), Jalandhar, has been filed in Court, which is taken on record.

3. As per the complaint in question (Annexure P-1), on 23.07.2013, Insecticides Inspector Gurcharan Singh visited the premises of M/s Agriculture Development Store, Village Kala Bakra, Block Bhogpur, District Jalandhar (the firm) and collected a sample of Atrazine 50% WP bearing Batch No.U-0138, manufacturing date 24.05.2013, allegedly manufactured by M/s. Insecticides (India) Limited, Delhi (the company) through its depot in Ludhiana. The samples were drawn following the prescribed procedure under the Act, and one sample was sent to the Senior Analyst at the Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Amritsar. The Amritsar laboratory, vide its report dated 22.08.2013, declared the sample ‘misbranded’, as the active ingredient content was found to be 36.40% WP, instead of the prescribed 50%. Subsequently, the reference sample was sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad, which confirmed the finding of misbranding. After obtaining the requisite sanction from the competent authority, a complaint was filed on 02.12.2015 before the learned CJM, Jalandhar. Petitioner-Rajesh Aggarwal (Director) (CRM-M-45058-2024), along with others including Godown Incharge- Inderjit Singh and Sales Officer-V.K. Singhal (petitioners in CRM-M-49011-2024) were summoned as accused.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the summoning order is unsustainable as the complaint in question lacks specific averments regarding the role of the petitioners in the alleged offence. It has been argued that mere designation as officials of the company is insufficient to attribute criminal liability under Section 33 of the Act. While relying upon the judgments in State of N.C.T. of Delhi Versus Rajiv Khurana, 2010 (3) RCR (Crl.) 912 and Cheminova India Ltd. Versus State of Punjab 2021 SCC Online SC 541, learned counsel submits that the absence of specific allegations demonstrating that the petitioners were responsible for the business of the company or quality control renders the complaint unsustainable.

5. The learned counsel further summits that the company had appointed Uday Kumar as Manager, Quality Control-cum-responsible person, who was tasked with ensuring compliance with Section 33 of the Act. This appointment was duly communicated to the Department of Agriculture, Punjab, through an affidavit dated 18.01.2012, annexed as Annexure P-3. In view of such nomination, the petitioners, who were not associated with the quality control of the manufactured product, cannot be held by vicariously liable.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioners, as officials of the company, were responsible for ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Act. It has been argued that the question of whether these petitioners were directly involved in quality control is a matter, which can be determined on