*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing of Criminal Complaint No. COMA-176-2021 dated 31.05.2021 titled as “State of Punjab through Insecticides Inspector versus M/s Nihal Trading Company and others”, instituted under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, along with summoning order dated 02.07.2021 passed by learned SDJM, Talwandi Sabo, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua the present petitioners, i.e petitioner No.1 Kuldeep Singh, arrayed as accused No.4 being Godown Incharge, and petitioner No.2 M/s Krishi Crop Science, arrayed as accused No.3 being Marketer through accused No.4 in the impugned complaint.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the complaint was filed by the Insecticides Inspector, Block Maur, District Bathinda under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 against the dealer, marketer and manufacturer of the insecticide in question. It was alleged that on 20.01.2020, the complainant along with the Agriculture Officer inspected the premises of dealer firm namely M/s Nahil Trading Co., Krishna Mandir Market, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda and found stock of insecticide 2,4-D Amine Salt 58% SL bearing Batch No. KCS-510, manufacturing date December 2019 and expiry date November 2021. The said insecticide had been manufactured by M/s Krishi Crop Science, Works Hanumangarh Road, Sakhta Khera, Sirsa, Haryana and marketed by M/s Krishi Crop Science, New Grain Market, Booth No.151, Malout, Punjab. It was further alleged that the sample was drawn from the premises of the dealer in the presence of Jaswinder Singh, proprietor of the dealer firm, after following the prescribed procedure and the same was sent for analysis to the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amritsar. Upon analysis, the sample was found not conforming to the prescribed specifications and thereafter, on the request made by the dealer, the reference sample was sent for re-analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad. As per the re-analysis report dated 04.06.2020, the active ingredient content was found to be 51.35% instead of the prescribed 58%, and consequently the sample was declared “misbranded” within the meaning of Section 3(k)(i) of the Act. In the complaint, accused No.1 M/s Nahil Trading Co. was described as the dealer firm and accused No.2 Jaswinder Singh was stated to be its sole proprietor and person responsible for day-to-day affairs of the said firm. It was alleged that the dealer had purchased the insecticide from the marketing company for sale to farmers and had stocked and distributed the same despite the sample having been found misbranded. The present petitioners were arrayed as accused No.3 and 4 respectively. Accused No.3 namely M/s Krishi Crop Science, New Grain Market, Booth No.151, Malout, Punjab was described in the complaint as the “marketing company”, whereas petitioner No.1 Kuldeep Singh was impleaded as accused No.4 being stated to be the Godown Incharge of the said marketing company. The only allegations levelled against the present petitioners are that the marketing company had distributed the insecticide to the dealer firm and that the petitioners allegedly failed to check the distribution of the insecticide which was subsequently found to be misbranded. The complaint further alleges that the petitioners had thereby violated the provisions of Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Act by marketing, stocking and distributing the said insecticide. The complaint further impleads accused No.5 M/s Krishi Crop Science, Works Hanumangarh Road, Sakhta Khera, Sirsa, Haryana as the manufacturing company; accused No.6 Roshan Lal Sharma as proprietor and person responsible for conduct o