IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.07.2025 KULJITPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER ...Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.

****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL , J.(ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Complaint No.30/2015 dated 17.04.2015 titled as State through Insecticide Inspector Vs. M/s Satguru Kheti Store and others filed under Sections 3(K)(1), 17, 18, 29 & 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 & Rules 1971 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran and the summoning order dated 17.04.2015 (Annexure P-2) and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom as being sheer abuse of process of law.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a licence holding dealer, who is protected under the Section 30 (3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 as there is no allegation in the complaint against him that he tampered with the seal of the containers of insecticides from which samples were drawn as he also received it from the FIL Industries Ltd. (Manufacturing Company). It is an admitted fact as has been argued by Mr.

Arora that samples drawn from the packets itself, were neither opened nor loose in any manner and to that effect the submissions get corroborated from the contents of complaint dated 17.04.2015 (Annexure P-2). Reference has been made by the petitioner while relying on the judgments rendered by this Court in CRM-M-43006-2000 titled as M/s. Sidhu Brothers Store Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-13530-2000 titled as M/s. Sherpuria Sales Corporation Vs. State of Punjab and CRM-M-25377-2017 titled as Darshan Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, wherein similar complaints were quashed on the ground that the dealers are protected under Section

30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968.

3. He further submits that the petitioner is a sole proprietor of M/s. Satguru Kheti Store and merely a supplier thus cannot be held liable of selling misbranded insecticides as he is not the manufacturer of the same.

4. It is further submitted that the expiry of the sealed insecticide was recorded as 31 October 2014 and the complaint was filed on 17th April 2015 which in itself renders the complaint frivolous, illegal and liable to be quashed as the settled law emanates that the complaint has to be filed within the period of the shelf life of the product.

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the present petition and submitted that the complaint was filed after following due procedure of rest sampling and analysis, and the insecticide in question was tested by by the State and Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory vide reports dated 31.12.2013 and 01.08.2014 respectively, declaring stock in possession of the petitioner as misbranded and he is therefore liable to face prosecution under the relevant provisions of the Act.

Analysis:

6. This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner is a valid licence holder for pesticide bearing number INS/512/2013/T issued by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Tarn Taran and admittedly the samples drawn from his shop were sealed with it's original packing intact leaving no scope for any kind of tampering and thereby enlarging him protection under Section 30(3), Insecticide Act, 1968. The same can be referred as under:

Section 30(3)A person not being an importer or a manufacturer of an insecticide or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for a contravention of any provision of this Act, if he proves-

(a)that he acquired the insecticide from an importer or a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof:

(b)that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the insecticide in any way contravened any provision of this Act; and (c)that the insecticide, while in his possession, was properly stored and remained in the same state a