Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Gharda Chemicals Ltd And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 1 August, 2026
REEMA SAINI
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 2
Insecticide Act, 1968. The dealer M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides and its
Proprietor, have filed separate petition seeking identical relief. Since both
petitions relate to the same case, they are being taken up together for
decision.
2. The facts, evident from the complaint are that complainant
Girjesh Bhargava, Agriculture Development Officer-cum-Notified
Insecticide Inspector, Mansa, visited the premises of the dealer M/s Guru
Kirpa Pesticides, Bareta Mandi, Tehsil Badhlada, (Mansa) on 27.07.2016
along with Sh. Gurditta, Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa and after
disclosing his identity, checked the insecticide license and stock. He took
sample of Cartap Hydrochloride 4% GR Batch No.BAY1071B,
manufacturing date 24.03.2015 expiry date 23.03.2017, manufactured by
M/s Gharda Chemicals Limited, Mumbai from one sealed 5 kg bag of
insecticide. Three test samples of insecticides were prepared as per
provisions of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
The samples were duly sealed. Form No. XXI was duly filled for sending the
sample for testing to Government Analyst. Four copies of Form No. XX
were also filled as per rules. One part of the sealed sample alongwith one
duly filled and signed Form No.XX was handed over to Gurpreet Singh
Proprietor of M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides, at the spot on 27.07.2016. Two
sealed test samples portion of the insecticides and Form Nos.XX and XXI
were presented to the Chief Agricultural Officer, Mansa, on 01.08.2016 who
after checking the same, sent one sealed sample portion of the insecticides to
Senior Analyst Insecticide Testing Laboratory Ludhiana, for analysis vide
office Endorsement No.224 dated 01.08.2016 along with Form No.XXI duly
REEMA SAINI
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 3
filled. Remaining one sealed test sample portion of the insecticide and
remaining two copies of each Forms No.XX and XXI were retained.
3. The test sample was analysed and analysis report of the
insecticides sample was sent vide report TA No. 249 dated 24.08.2016 to
Chief Agricultural Officer, Mansa. As per analysis report, the sample had
3.67% active ingredient content of Cartap Hydrochloride instead of Cartap
Hydrochloride 4% GR and was declared 'misbranded' under the provisions
of the Act. After receiving the analysis report on 24.08.2016, the Chief
Agricultural Officer, Mansa-cum-Licensing Officer, served show cause
notice along with analysis report to the dealer M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides,
Bareta Mandi, Tehsil Budhlada and to its Proprietor vide letter No.6255-56
dated 05.10.2016. The dealer, through its Proprietor submitted reply to the
show cause notice dated 05.10.2016, which was received on 12.10.2016 in
the office of Chief Agricultural Officer Mansa. The dealer acknowledged the
sample taken and submitted the purchase bill along with reply. Chief
Agricultural Officer, Mansa-cum-Licensing Officer, again served show
cause notice to the dealer M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides and to its Proprietor
vide letter dated 07.11.2016 to explain the matter by appearing personally in
the office on 17.11.2016. The dealer firm M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides
submitted reply on 11.11.2016 in response to the show cause notice and
requested for getting the reference sample retested from Central Insecticides
Laboratory, Faridabad at their cost. The dealer firm was accordingly directed
vide letter dated 14.12.2016 to get the reference sample retested by filing an
application under Section 24(4) of the Act before the Court.
4. It is further complainant's case that Chief Agriculture Officer,
Mansa, served show cause notices to the responsible persons of
REEMA SAINI
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 4
manufacturing and suppliers of Company M/s Gharda Chemicals Ltd.
regarding the failure of the sample and violation of Sections 3K (1), 17, 18,
33 of the Act. Copy of the show cause notice dated 15.12.2016 was served
on the responsible officials of the company. The Manufacturing Company
M/s Gharda Chemicals Ltd. submitted its reply on 28.12.2016, in response
to the show cause notice expressing dissatisfaction with the analysis report
of Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana and requested for getting the
reference sample portion retested from Central Insecticides Laboratory,
Faridabad. After considering the reply of the dealer firm, Chief Agriculture
Officer, Mansa, cancelled its insecticides licence which was valid upto
31.12.2016, on account of failure of the sample and violation of Sections
3K (1), 17, 18, 33 of the Act.
5. In appeal filed by M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides, the cancellation
order was stayed, till the receipt of the re-analysis result of the sample. M/s
Guru Kirpa Pesticides, filed application on 03.04.2017 under Section 24(4)
of the Act, before the Court requesting for re-testing of the reference sample.
Reference sample could not be sent for re-analysis as shelf life of the sample
expired on 23.03.2017. After receiving the consent/sanction under Section
31(1) of the Act from Joint Director of Agriculture (Plant Protection), Punjab
SAS Nagar, prosecution was launched for violation of provisions of Section
31(1) of the Act, against the dealer M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides, its Proprietor
and responsible person Gurpreet Singh and the Manufacturer M/s Gharda
Chemicals Ltd., its Director and responsible persons.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint
and summoning order dated 06.06.2019 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Budhlada, qua the manufacturing company, its Director and
REEMA SAINI
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 5
responsible persons was liable to be set aside, being violative of Section
24(4) of the Act. It is argued that after receiving show cause notice dated
15.12.2016, the functionaries of the manufacturing company, vide letter
dated 02.01.2017 sought retesting of the sample. However, the respondents
did not respond to the request of the manufacturing company which
amounted to infringement of its right to get the sample retested before its
expiry. In view of Section 24(3) of the Act, even the manufacturer was
entitled to an opportunity for re-analysis of the sample from Central
Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad. Respondents failed to discharge their
duties under the Act, to get the sample retested, although they were well
aware that the sample was to expire on 23.03.2017. The complaint was filed
on 06.06.2019 when the sample had already expired. The manufacturer
having been denied the opportunity of retesting of the sample and to
controvert the finding of the Senior analyst Insecticides Laboratory,
Ludhiana, Punjab, the complaint as well as summoning order deserved to be
quashed. It was further argued that there was violation of Section 24(2) of
the Act as well as the complainant did not issue show cause notice to the
manufacturer company and show cause notice Annexure P-6 was only issued
to the Director and the responsible persons. Thus, the complaint and the
summoning order dated 06.06.2019 against the manufacturer, its Director
and responsible persons deserved to be quashed. To support his arguments,
he referred to M/s Northern Minerals Ltd. And others Versus Rajasthan
Govt. and another, 2016 AIR (SC) 2543 and M/s Northern Minerals Ltd.
And others Versus Union of India 2010(3) RCR (Criminal),763.
REEMA SAINI
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 6
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that M/s Guru
Kirpa Pesticides and its Proprietor too were not liable to be prosecuted as the
samples were drawn from sealed bag of 5 kg and there was nothing to show
that the bag was not properly stored by the licensed dealer or at the time of
taking of the sample, the bags were not properly sealed. In this context,
reference has been made to M/s Rallis India Limited and others Versus
State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector, CRM-M-20338 of 2017,
decided on 20.04.2022.
8. Reply to the petition has been filed by State of Punjab by way
of affidavit of Gijresh Bhargava, Agriculture Development Officer-cum-
Insecticide Inspector, Mansa. On the strength of the reply furnished, learned
State counsel submits that well before the expiry date of sample of
insecticides i.e. on 05.10.2016, respondent No.2 had intimated the dealer
M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides, from whom the sample was taken to get
reference sample retested by filing an application under Section 24(4) before
the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Budhlada. The dealer
firm filed the application before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Budhlada, only on 03.04.2017, after expiry of shelf life, thus the sample
could not be sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad for
retesting. No valuable right of the dealer was infringed. Show cause notice
was also served on the Director and responsible officials of the
manufacturing company alongwith a copy of analysis report and reply of the
manufacturing company was received on 28.12.2016. The manufacturing
Company was represented by its Director and responsible persons who did
not show any intention under Section 24(3) of the Act nor applied for
retesting of the referring sample. Thus, petitioners lost the valuable right to
REEMA SAINI
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 7
get the sample retested. The complaint under Sections 3K (1), 17, 18, 33 of
the Act was legally valid and the summoning order was issued as per law.
No prejudice was caused to the petitioners, even though the complaint was
filed on 06.06.2019 after expiry of the date of the sample.
9. To appreciate the submissions made, a reference to the
provisions of Sections 22 and 24 of the Act is necessitated. The same are
extracted hereunder:
22. Procedure to be followed by Insecticide Inspectors.–(1)
Where an Insecticide Inspector seizes any record, register or
document under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 21, he
shall, as soon as may be, inform a Magistrate and take his orders
as to the custody thereof.
(2) Where an Insecticide Inspector takes any action under clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of section 21-–
(a) he shall use all dispatch in ascertaining whether or not
the insecticide or its sale, distribution or use contravenes any of the
provisions of section 18 and if it is ascertained that the insecticide
or its sale, distribution or use does not so contravene, forthwith
revoke the order passed under the said clause or, as the case may
be, take such action as may be necessary for the return of the stock
seized;
(b) if he seizes the stock of the insecticide he shall, as soon
as may be, inform a Magistrate and take his orders as to the
custody thereof;
(c) without prejudice to the institution of any prosecution, if
the alleged contravention be such that the defect may be remedied
by the possessor of the insecticide, he shall, on being satisfied that
the defect has been so remedied, forthwith revoke his order and in
case where the Insecticide Inspector has seized the stock of
insecticide, he shall, as soon as may be, inform a Magistrate and
obtain his orders as to the release thereof.
1 [(3) Where an Insecticide Inspector takes any sample of an
insecticide, he shall issue a receipt therefor stating therein that the
fair price of such sample shall be tendered if the sample, after test
or analysis is not found to be misbranded and the Insecticide
REEMA SAINI
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 8
Analyst has reported to that effect and on such price having been
tendered may require a written acknowledgement therefor.]
(4) 2 *** where the Insecticide Inspector seizes the stock of any
insecticide under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 21, he
shall tender a receipt therefor in the prescribed form.
(5) Where an Insecticide Inspector takes a sample of an insecticide
for the purpose of test or analysis, he shall intimate such purpose
in writing in the prescribed form to the person from whom he takes
it and, in the presence of such person unless he wilfully absents
himself, shall divide the sample into three portions and effectively
seal and suitably mark the same and permit such person to add his
own seal and mark to all or any of the portions so sealed and
marked: Provided that where the insecticide is made up in
containers of small volume, instead of dividing a sample as
aforesaid, the Insecticide Inspector may, and if the insecticide be
such that it is likely to deteriorate or be otherwise damaged by
exposure shall, take three of the said containers after suitably
marking the same and, where necessary, sealing them.
(6) The Insecticide Inspector shall restore one portion of a sample
so divided or one container, as the case may be, to the person from
whom he takes it and shall retain the remainder and dispose of the
same as follows:–
(i) one portion or container, he shall forthwith send to the
Insecticide Analyst for test or analysis; and
(ii) the second, he shall produce to the court before which
proceedings, if any, are instituted in respect of the insecticide.
xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
24. Report of Insecticide Analyst.–(1) The Insecticide Analyst to
whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test or
analysis under sub-section (6) of section 22, shall, within a period
of 1 [thirty] days, deliver to the Insecticide Inspector submitting it
a signed report in duplicate in the prescribed form.
(2) The Insecticide Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver
one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was
taken and shall retain the other copy for use in any prosecution in
respect of the sample.
(3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by an
Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein, and
REEMA SAINI
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 9
such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the
sample was taken has within twenty-eight days of the receipt of a
copy of the report notified in writing the Insecticide Inspector or
the court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are
pending that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the
report.
(4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed
in the Central Insecticides Laboratory, where a person has under
sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in
controversion of the Insecticide Analyst‟s report, the court may, of
its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the
complainant or of the accused, cause the sample of the insecticide
produced before the magistrate under sub-section (6) of section 22
to be sent for test or analysis to the said laboratory, 2 [which shall,
within a period of thirty days, make the test or analysis] and report
in writing signed by, or under the authority of, the Director of the
Central Insecticides Laboratory the result thereof, and such report
shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.
(5) The cost of a test or analysis made by the Central
Insecticides Laboratory under sub-section (4) shall be paid by the
complainant or the accused, as the court shall direct.
10. The legal position that under Section 24(4) of the Act, an
accused other than a person from whom sample is taken also has a right to
seek re-testing of the sample and adduce evidence in contraversion of the
report of the insecticide analyst, is now well settled.
11. In M/s Northern Minerals Ltd. And others Versus Rajasthan
Govt. and another, 2016 AIR (SC) 2543, the Apex Court ruled as under:
“………………..we have no hesitation to conclude, that insofar as the
person from whom the sample was taken, the right to raise an
objection is circumscribed by requiring him to indicate his intention
to do so within 28 days of the receipt of the copy of the report. There
is however no such limitation of time placed by the legislature on the
complainant and/or the other accused proceeded against. In the
above view of the matter, insofar as the present appeal is concerned,
REEMA SAINI we find, that a vital right vested in the appellants/accused to get the
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 10sample re-tested (from the Central Insecticides Laboratory), to
controvert the report of analysis of the sample obtained by the
Insecticide Inspector, stood frustrated. The appellants have lost the
right to disprove their guilt. The appellants cannot be proceeded
against, when they have, for no fault of their own, lost a vital right of
defence. We are satisfied to conclude, that under sub-Section (4) of
Section 24 of the Act, an accused other than a person from whom the
sample is taken, also has a right to adduce evidence in controversion
of the Insecticide Analysit’s Report, and in case the accused avail of
the above right under sub-Section (4) of Section 24, he must bear the
expenses of the test or analysis, to be made by the Central
Insecticides Laboratory (under sub-Section 5 of Section 24)”
12. Undisputed facts of the case with relevant dates are illustrated
in tabular form as under:
Date
27.07.2016 Sample of insecticide was drawn from the
premises of dealer M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides,
Bareta Mandi, District Mansa.
24.08.2016 Report of the Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing
Laboratory, Ludhiana was received declaring the
sample of insecticide misbranded.
05.10.2016 A Show cause notice was issued to dealer M/s
Guru Kirpa Pesticides, Mansa along with a copy
o the Senior Analyst report.
14.10.2016 The dealer M/s Kirpa Pesticides, Mansa filed
reply to the aforesaid show cause notice.
07.11.2016 The dealer was issued letter affording personal
hearing on 17.11.2016.
15.12.2016 Show cause notice was issued to the functionaries
of the manufacturing firm along with a copy of
report of Insecticides Testing Laboratory,
Ludhiana.
02.01.2017 Functionaries of the manufacturing company filed
their reply with request for retesting.
02.07.2018 The Joint Director, Agriculture (Plants
Protection), SAS Nagar accorded sanction for
prosecuting the petitioners as well as the other
accused.
REEMA SAINI
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 11
06.06.2019 The Insecticide Inspector instituted a complaint
against the petitioners and the same day
summoning order was passed.
13. The facts above make it evident that the dealer M/s Guru Kirpa
Pesticides, did not, within the time lines provided by Section 24(3) of the
Act (28 days on receipt of copy of report) notify in writing to the Insecticide
Inspector that it intended to adduce evidence in contraversion of the report
or that it intended to have the sample re-analysed. The dealer merely
submitted reply to the show cause notice, without expressing such intention
whereafter letter was issued by the complainant for personal hearing on
07.11.2016. It was only on 11.11.2016 that a request was made by the dealer
that the sample be got retested from authorised laboratory. The plea that the
dealer lost its valuable right of getting the sample retested is therefore, not
available to M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides.
14. Be that as it may, it was not before 15.12.2016 that Chief
Agricultural Officer, Mansa, addressed a communication to the Director and
responsible persons of manufacturing firm M/s Gharda Chemicals Ltd.,
requiring an explanation why legal action should not be lauched against
them, informing them about the testing of the sample by Senior Analyst
Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana and the report of ‘misbranding’
in respect of percentage of the active ingredients. In response thereto, the
functionaries of manufacturing firm addressed communication dated
28.12.2016 requesting for re-testing of the samples, which evoked no
response or action from the complainant’s side.
REEMA SAINI
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 12
15. At this juncture, observations of Apex Court in M/s Northern
Minerals Ltd. And others Versus Union of India 2010(3) RCR
(Criminal),763, need to be referred:
22. From the language and the underlying object behind
Section 24(3)and (4) of the Act as also from the ratio of the
aforesaid decisions of this Court, we are of the opinion that
mere notifying the intention to adduce evidence in
controversion of the report of the Insecticide Analyst confers
on the accused the right and clothes the court with the
jurisdiction to send the sample for analysis by the Central
Insecticides Laboratory and an accused is not required to
demand in specific terms that the sample be sent for analysis
to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. In our opinion the
mere intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the
report, implies demand to send the sample to the Central
Insecticides Laboratory for test and analysis.
23. Section 24(3) of the Act gives right to the accused to rebut
the conclusive nature of the evidence of the Insecticide
Analyst by notifying its intention to adduce evidence in
controversion of the report before the Insecticide Inspector or
before the court where proceeding in respect of the samples is
pending. Further, the court has been given power to send the
sample for analysis and test by the Central Insecticides
Laboratory of its own motion or at the request of the
complainant or the accused.
24. No proceeding was pending before any court when the
accused was served with the Insecticide Analyst’s Report, the
intention was necessarily required to be conveyed to the
Insecticide Inspector, which was so done by the appellant and
in this background the Insecticide Inspector was obliged to
institute complaint forthwith and produce the sample and
request the court to send the sample for analysis and test to
the Central Insecticides Laboratory. The appellant did
whatever was possible for it. Its right has been defeated by notREEMA SAINI
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 13sending the sample for analysis and report to the Central
Insecticides Laboratory.
25. It may be mentioned herein that shelf life of the
insecticides had expired even prior to the filing of the
complaint. The position therefore which emerges is that by
sheer inaction the shelf life of the sample of insecticides had
expired and for that reason no step was possible to be taken
for its test and analysis by the Central Insecticides
Laboratory. A valuable right of the appellant having been
defeated, we are of the opinion that allowing this criminal
prosecution against the appellant to continue shall be futile
and abuse of the process of court.
27. It is interesting to note that Section 24(3)and (4) of the Act
oblige the Insecticide Analyst and the Central Insecticides
Laboratory to make the test and analysis and report within
thirty days. When 30 days is good enough for report, there
does not seem any justification not to lodge complaint within
30 days, from the receipt of the intimation from the accused
and getting order for sending the sample for test and analysis
to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. All who are entrusted
with the implementation of the provisions of the Act, would be
well advised to act with promptitude and adhere to the time
schedule, so that innocent persons are not prosecuted and real
culprits not left out.”
16. In the case before us as well, after receiving request for re-
analysis on 02.01.2017 (before the expiry date of the insecticide), the
respondents did not institute the complaint within reasonable time and the
complaint was instituted only on 06.06.2019 after more than 2-1/2 years of
the request submitted by functionaries of manufacturing Company for re-
testing. By the time the complaint was filed, the insecticide had expired and
therefore, application under Section 24(4) to the Court could not have been
made, for test and re-analysis of the sample by the Central Insecticides
REEMA SAINI Laboratory. A valuable right of the manufacturing company having been
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 14
defeated, prosecution against the company and its officer cannot be allowed
to proceed.
17. It would be apposite now to refer to Section 30 of the Act,
which reads as under:
’30. Defences which may or may not be allowed in
prosecutions under this Act.–(1) Save as hereinafter provided
in this section, it shall be no defence in a prosecution under
this Act to prove merely that the accused was ignorant of the
nature or quality of the insecticide in respect of which the
offence was committed or of the risk involved in the
manufacture, sale or use of such insecticide or of the
circumstances of its manufacture or import.
(2) For the purposes of section 17, an insecticide shall not be
deemed to be misbranded only by reason of the fact that– (a)
there has been added thereto some innocuous substance or
ingredient because the same is required for the manufacture
or the preparation of the insecticide as an article of commerce
in a state fit for carriage or consumption, and not to increase
the bulk, weight or measure of the insecticide or to conceal its
inferior quality or other defect; or (b) in the process of
manufacture, preparation or conveyance some extraneous
substance has unavoidably become intermixed with it. (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 as when he acquired it.’REEMA SAINI
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 15
18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v.
Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur and another (1990) SCC (Criminal)
623, held as under : –
“4. The High Court took the view that by enacting sub-
section (1) of Section 30 of the Act, Parliament had taken
out the element of mens rea from consideration and,
therefore, knowledge was not at all material. Appellant’s
counsel has argued that protection of sub-section (3) is
available not only to prosecutions but also to every
contravention of the Act and cancellation of licence for
contravention of the Act is also a matter covered by sub-
section (3). We are inclined to accept the submission and
take the view that whether it is prosecution or
contravention leading to cancellation, sub-section (3)
applies. In that view of the matter, on the facts found that
it was a full tin in a sealed condition, the liability arising
out of misbranding was not of the appellant. Unless he
had any other source of information about misbranding –
and it has not been established – the appellant is entitled
to the protection of (sic) appellant’s contention that it was
a sealed tin intact has been found, the burden that lay on
him under the provisions of subsection (3) had been
satisfactorily discharged, even in the matter of
considering the question of cancellation of licence and,
therefore, his licence should not have been cancelled. We
allow the appeal, reverse the order of the High Court and
the authorities and restore the licence. The appeal is
disposed of accordingly. No costs.”
19. The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court has been followed by
Co-ordinate Benches of this Court.
REEMA SAINI
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 16
20. In Lochen Kheti Sewa Centre Vs. State of Punjab, 2008 (2)
RCR (Criminal) 22, it was observed as under:-
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State
has very fairly stated that the petitioner is not the
manufacturer. The sample was drawn from sealed packets
and there is no material to indicate that it was properly
stored. Under the circumstances the petitioner cannot be
held liable for misbranding of the insecticide. Only the
manufacturer, who is being proceeded against would be
responsible.
21. This Court in the matter of Surinder Kumar Vs. State of
Punjab, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 211 held as under:-
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner is a licensee under Insecticide Act, 1968 to deal
with various kinds of insecticides and pesticides of
registered and approved manufacturers. It has further
been clarified that the petitioner sells only sealed and
packed insecticides/pesticides. A sample of insecticide
that has been manufactured by a company approved by
Government of Punjab was drawn on 25.05.2001. The
sample was drawn from originally sealed and packed
container. In above regards, learned counsel has referred
to para No.3 of the petition which is extracted hereunder:
“3. That as per complainant version on
25.05.2001, he drew a sample of one insecticide i.e.
Metalyax 8% + Mancozeb 64% EC bearing Batch
No.KG-09, Mfg. November, 2000 and Expiry
October, 2002 out of two 500 gms. Originally
sealed and packed containers lying properly from
the shop premises of the petitioner-firm as
manufactured by M/s. Fungicide India Ltd. Jammu.
REEMA SAINI
The said manufacturing company i.e. M/s
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 17Fungicide Ltd. Jammu is the registered and
authorised manufacturing company by Govt. of
Punjab to sell its products in the State of Punjab”
3. Learned counsel states that it is admitted case of the
respondents that sample was drawn from sealed and
packed container. In this regard, learned counsel has
referred to Para No.3 of the reply on merits which reads
as under:-
3. That the contents of para No.3 of the petition are
matter of record.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has a licence to
sell insecticides and pesticides manufactured by
companies approved by Government of India and
Government of Punjab. It is further not in dispute that the
sample that has been drawn has been manufactured by
approved manufacturer. There is no material available on
the file to indicate that the insecticide was stored in
violation of rules. It is also the admitted position that
sample was drawn from originally sealed and packed
containers.
6. In view of the above, the only conclusion that can be
drawn is that the petitioner who is merely selling the
insecticide had no occasion to tamper with the contents of
the container/insecticide.
7. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion
that continuance of proceedings against the petitioner
would he abuse of process of law and abuse of process of
Court. The petitioners being only involved in sale of
insecticide, cannot be held responsible for the contents of
the container from which the sample has been drawn.
22. This Court has further in the matter of Naresh Kumar Vs. State
of Punjab, 2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 202 held as under:-
7.It is evident from above that sample was taken
REEMA SAINI
from original packing.
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 18
8.Affidavit dated 06.12.2010 of S Navtej Singh,
Insecticide Inspector, District Kapurthala has been
filed. Para 1 of the said affidavit reads under:-
“1. Original packing as per Form XX refers to the
stock in possession of accused, which at the time of
sampling is in a sealed condition which is
purported to be same as packed, lebelled and
sealed by the manufacturer. Although, it is stated in
the subsequent paragraph that it is yet to be
determined whether the insecticide in question
(Monocrotophos 36% SL of
one liter each) was in original sealed packing or as
to whether the sealed packing was tampered with
or not, the allegation in the complaint and Form
No. XX speaks for themselves. There is no doubt
left that the sample was drawn from the originally
sealed and packed containers weighing one liter
and packed by the registered and authorized
manufacturing company. There
is no allegation that in the said complaint that the
said seal was tampered with or the originally
packing was tampered with. There is no allegation
that the said sample was not stored in the same
state.
(…..)
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present
petition is allowed. Complaint No. 79 dated
02.03.2007 under sections 3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 and
33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 read with rules 27
(5) of the Insecticides Rules 1971 titled as State v
M/s Punjab Khad Store and others pending in the
Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kapurthala and summoning order and allREEMA SAINI
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 19consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua
the petitioners are hereby quashed
23. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Rallis India Limited
and others Versus State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector (supra)
too has held that the marketing agency/licensed dealer cannot be held
vicariously liable and penalised for misbranding of a product where they
were not involved in the manufacturing process at all, merely for having
traded in the same when the sample was drawn from a sealed package and
was properly stored.
24. As per admitted case, M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticidies was the dealer
duly licensed to sell, stock, exibit for sale or distribution of insecticides. The
sample was taken on 27.07.2016. Its license was valid upto 31.12.2016. The
samples were drawn from 5 kgs original sealed bag of insecticides Cartap
Hydrochloride 4% GR bearing Batch No.BAY1071B, manufacturing date
24.03.2015 and expiry date 23.03.2017, manufactured by M/s Gharda
Chemicals Limited, Mumbai.
25. The dealer M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticidies, vide its reply dated
14.10.2016 to the show cause notice (on record as Annexure P-4) conveyed
to the Chief Agricultural Officer, as below:
1. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx.
2. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx.
3. That the insecticides in question namely (Kraft) Cartap
Hydrochloride 4% GR purchased from Gharda Chemicals
Ltd. C/o Baba ji Agencies 10th mile stone, Bahinda-Goniana
Road, Village: Bhokara Bathinda. Regd. Office: 48, Hill
Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai-400050. VIDE their invoice
NoSAL/P/0117/1617 dtd. 14-04-2016 (Photo stat copy of the
bill enclosed) and the same material was duly entered in ourREEMA SAINI
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 20duly certified stock register in the Folio no. 4 (Photo stat copy
of the front page and folio no. 4 of stock register enclosed).
4. The said insecticides is manufactured by Gharda Chemicals
Ltd. duly licenced manufacturer having their sales permission
for the state of Punjab granted by Director of Agricultureal
(Punjab)Chandigarh.
5. That Sh. Girjesh Bhagrav the insecticides Inspector Mansa
drawn the sample of the above product on 27-07-2016 from
original pack of 5KG packing, with originally sealed in intact
condition containing a declaration by the said
manufacturturer that the active ingredient contents are in
conformity and same as mentioned on the outside of the the
pack (Photocopy of the bill enclosed).
6. That I not being the manufacturer could not with
reasonable diligence ascertained that the said insecticide was
sub standard as alleged by your goodself in the show cause
notice and test report. The insecticides in question was
properly stored and remained in the same State as and when it
was purchased from the concerned manufacturer through the
said authorized distributors. Thus, we cannot be held liable
for the fault on the part of the manufacturer, as provided in
accordance with section 60(3) of the said act. The licencee
being a licence holder is procted under section 30(3) of the
act, it is clear that the licencee for the purposes, of selling
insecticides cannot be held liable even if the sample is not
found conformity with ISI specification. The licencee is
neither an improter, nor a manufacturer of the insecticides or
his agent but is a licence holder for the purpose of selling
insecticides.
Contents of Annexure P4 sent by the dealer have not been
disputed.
26. It has not been alleged anywhere in the complaint that the
sample was not properly stored in accordance with the provision contained
in the Insecticides Acts and Rules framed thereunder nor it is alleged that the
REEMA SAINI
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-8948 of 2020 (O&M) 21
sealed bag was not kept in the same state as when acquired after purchase
by M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticidies. There is no allegation that the invoice vide
which the insecticide was purcahsed by the dealer firm from the
manufacturing firm, was not genuine. M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticidies, being the
dealer, thus could not be said to be responsible for the quality of the product
or for ensuring the labelled ingredients or for misbranding of the
insecticides purchased from and manufactured by M/s Gharda Chemicals
Ltd.
27. Petitioners, the manufacturing company, its Director,
representatives and the dealer, its Proprietor, thus cannot be prosecuted for
the offence under Sections 3K (1), 17, 18, 33 of Insecticide Act, 1968.
Continuation of the criminal proceedings against them would not serve the
ends of justice.
28. The petitions are allowed. Complaint No.13 of 2019 titled
‘State Versus M/s Guru Kirpa Pesticides and others’ pending before learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Budhlada, order dated 06.06.2019 summoning
the petitioners to face trial under Sections 3K (1), 17, 18, 33 of Insecticide
Act, 1968, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby
quashed qua the petitioners.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another
connected case.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
01.08.2026 JUDGE
reema
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes/No
REEMA SAINI
2026.08.01 13:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh
