Ram Avtar Garg And Another vs State Of Punjab
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M-50905-2019 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
139
CRM-M-50905-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision : 07.09.2026
Ram Avtar Garg and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Rakesh Verma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
seeking quashing of impugned Complaint bearing No.304 dated 06.09.2019,
titled State v. M/s Garg Farm Service and others , filed under Sections
3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’)
read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, pending before the
Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, District
Bathinda, along with the summoning order dated 06.09.2019 and all
consequential proceedings qua the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of
this petition are that the impugned complaint was filed on the allegations
that the complainant, who is a notified Insecticide Inspector, inspected the
premises of M/s Garg Farm Service, Raman Mandi, District Bathinda, on
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 14:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-50905-2019 (O&M) -2-
03.07.2018. During inspection, 2400 kgs of insecticide Fipronil 0.3% GR,
Batch No. MCPF1807, manufactured by M/s Modesto Crop Protection Pvt.
Ltd., Karnal, was found in stock. A sample was drawn in the presence of the
proprietor of the dealer firm and a representative of the Agriculture
Department. Three test portions were prepared at the spot in accordance
with the prescribed procedure. One sealed portion was handed over to the
dealer, while the remaining portions were retained in official custody. The
record further shows that the complainant deposited the remaining samples
with the Chief Agriculture Officer on 04.07.2018 and one sealed sample was
thereafter sent to the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amritsar, on
05.07.2018. The sample was deposited in the laboratory on the same day.
3. As per the further allegations, the report of the State Insecticide
Testing Laboratory, Amritsar, dated 17.07.2018, found the active ingredient
of Fipronil to be 0.02% instead of the required 0.3% and declared the sample
misbranded. On the request of the dealer, the reference sample was
thereafter re-tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad. The
re-analysis also found the sample to be misbranded, with the active
ingredient found to be 0.17% instead of 0.3%, vide report dated 26.11.2018.
Thereafter, notices were issued to the concerned dealer as well as the
officials of the manufacturing and marketing company. The manufacturing
company submitted its reply and acknowledged having supplied the
insecticide to the dealer. The competent authority thereafter granted written
consent/sanction under Section 31(1) of the Insecticides Act for launching
prosecution. The complaint was accordingly filed against the dealer, the
manufacturing company and its concerned officials, including the present
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 14:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-50905-2019 (O&M) -3-
petitioners. In the complaint, petitioner No.1-Ram Avtar Garg is described
as the Director of the manufacturing and marketing company and petitioner
No.2-Lavish Kansal as its Godown Incharge.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the
impugned complaint as well as the summoning order are not sustainable in
the eyes of law. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 is merely a
Director and petitioner No.2 is the Godown Incharge of the manufacturing
company and neither of them was responsible for quality control of the
insecticides. It is further argued that the company had already nominated
Surinder Singh, its Manager/Quality Control Officer, as the responsible
person under Section 33 of the Insecticides Act and he had also been arrayed
as an accused in the complaint. Once a responsible person had been
nominated, the petitioners, who were not concerned with quality control,
could not be prosecuted for the same alleged offence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that there
was no material to show that the petitioners were in charge of and
responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant
time. It was argued that their prosecution was, therefore, not covered by
Section 33 of the Act. Learned counsel also argued that the sample was
drawn on 03.07.2018 but was sent to the State Insecticide Testing
Laboratory only on 05.07.2018, i.e. after two days, and this amounted to
non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act. The petitioners
were residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate
and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was required to follow the procedure
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before issuing process. It was argued that no such
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 14:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-50905-2019 (O&M) -4-
inquiry or investigation was conducted. Learned counsel also argued that the
summoning order was a non-speaking order and did not reflect application
of mind. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed
that the complaint, summoning order and all consequential proceedings qua
the petitioners deserve to be quashed and the petition deserves to be allowed.
6. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State. On the
strength of the same, learned State counsel has opposed the petition and has
argued that the complaint contains specific allegations against the petitioners
and their roles are clearly stated therein. Section 33 of the Act does not
provide that only the person nominated as the responsible person can be
prosecuted. A person who was in charge of and responsible for the conduct
of the business of the company, as well as a Director or other officer whose
consent, connivance or neglect is attributable to the commission of the
offence, can also be proceeded against. It is further argued that both the
petitioners had themselves submitted affidavits before the licensing authority
showing their respective positions and responsibilities in the company. The
mere fact that Surinder Singh was also nominated as the responsible person
would not absolve the petitioners of their own criminal liability, if otherwise
made out from the material on record. With regard to the sample, learned
State counsel argued that the sample was properly sealed and remained in
official custody. It was handed over to the Chief Agriculture Officer on
04.07.2018 and was thereafter sent to the laboratory on 05.07.2018. The
sample was found misbranded not only by the State Laboratory but also by
the Central Insecticides Laboratory on re-analysis. It is also argued that the
pleas raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact which can
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 14:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-50905-2019 (O&M) -5-
be examined by the learned trial Court after evidence is led. No case has
been made out for quashing the impugned complaint. Hence, it is urged that
the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court has heard the rival submissions of learned counsel
for the parties.
8. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that
petitioner No.1 is only a Director and petitioner No.2 is only the Godown
Incharge and that the company had already nominated Surinder Singh as the
responsible person under Section 33 of the Act. This submission cannot be
accepted at this stage. The complaint does not proceed merely on the basis of
the designation of the petitioners. There are specific allegations against
petitioner No.1 that he was the Director of the manufacturing and marketing
company and had submitted an affidavit before the licensing authority for
compliance with Section 33 of the Act. Similar specific allegations have
been made against petitioner No.2, who is described as the authorised
Godown Incharge and who had also submitted an affidavit before the
licensing authority. The complaint alleges that they failed to discharge their
duties in relation to the distribution of the misbranded insecticide. Section
33(2) of the Act specifically provides that where an offence under this Act
has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been
committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any
neglect on the part of, any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of
the company, such Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer shall also be
deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded
against and punished accordingly. Whether the petitioners were in fact in
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 14:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-50905-2019 (O&M) -6-
charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business, whether there was
any negligence on their part and whether the requirements of Section 33 are
ultimately satisfied are matters which would require consideration of
evidence. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake an appreciation of such
evidence in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The fact that Surinder
Singh was also nominated as the responsible person does not put an end to
the prosecution against the petitioners. The complaint specifically names
Surinder Singh as the person responsible for quality control and conduct of
business but it also contains separate and specific allegations against
petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2. The prosecution of one person does not
confer immunity upon another person against whom there are specific
allegations in the complaint.
9. The argument regarding the delay of two days in sending the
sample also does not make out a ground for quashing the proceedings. The
record shows that the sample was drawn on 03.07.2018, the remaining
sealed portions were deposited with the Chief Agriculture Officer on
04.07.2018, and one sealed portion was sent to the State Laboratory on
05.07.2018. The complaint specifically records that the samples remained in
safe custody and the sample sent to the laboratory was duly sealed. The
laboratory record also records that the seal was intact and tallied with the
specimen seal. Thus, merely because the sample reached the laboratory two
days after it was drawn cannot, on the material presently available, be treated
as sufficient to hold that the prosecution is legally unsustainable. The effect,
if any, of the time taken in transmission can always be examined by the
learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence led before it. There is also
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 14:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-50905-2019 (O&M) -7-
material which cannot be ignored at this stage. The sample was found to be
misbranded by the State Laboratory and, thereafter, the reference sample
was re-tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad, where also
it was found not to conform to the prescribed specification. The Central
Laboratory found the active ingredient to be 0.17% against the required
0.3%.
10. As regards the objection regarding non-compliance with Section
202 Cr.P.C., the same also does not merit acceptance. The complaint in the
present case has been instituted by the Insecticide Inspector, a public
servant, in discharge of his official duties. Hence, no inquiry under Section
202 Cr.P.C. was required to be conducted. The issue is squarely covered by
the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in The State of
Kerala & another v. M/s Panacea Biotec Ltd. & Anr., 2026 INSC 200 ,
wherein, while considering an identical objection regarding non-compliance
of Section 202 Cr.P.C. in a prosecution instituted by a statutory Inspector, it
has been held that Section 202 Cr.P.C. has to be construed harmoniously
with Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that where the complaint is made in writing by
a public servant acting in discharge of his official duties, the Magistrate is
not required to examine the complainant and the witnesses on oath. The
Court noticed that the legislature has placed such a public servant on a
different footing from a complainant in a private capacity and, accordingly,
answered the issue in favour of the prosecution. In view of the aforesaid
authoritative pronouncement, the mere fact that the petitioners were residing
beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate and that no
separate inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was conducted, cannot, in the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 14:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-50905-2019 (O&M) -8-
facts of the present case, be made a ground to quash the complaint or the
summoning order. So far as the summoning order is concerned, though the
order dated 06.09.2019 is brief and records that the complaint was presented,
checked and registered and that notice be issued to the accused, the same
cannot be examined in isolation from the complaint and the material
accompanying it. The complaint had already been placed before the learned
Magistrate and contained specific allegations against the petitioners. The
mere absence of a detailed discussion of the evidence in the summoning
order is not alone sufficient to quash the proceedings.
11. It is also relevant that the competent authority had considered
the material and granted written sanction under Section 31(1) of the
Insecticides Act for prosecution of the concerned persons, including the
present petitioners. At this stage, this Court is not required to determine
whether the petitioners would ultimately be found guilty. The limited
question is whether, on a reading of the complaint and the material placed on
record, the proceedings against them are so baseless that their continuation
would amount to abuse of the process of law. In the present case, that test is
not satisfied. The complaint contains specific allegations, the insecticide
sample was found to be misbranded on two occasions, the manufacturing
company is admittedly connected with the product in question, the
petitioners' respective roles have been mentioned in the complaint, and the
competent authority had granted sanction for prosecution. The defence
sought to be raised by the petitioners can be properly examined by the
learned Trial Court after the parties lead their evidence.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 14:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-50905-2019 (O&M) -9-
12. Keeping in view the discussion made above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that no ground is made out for exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The present petition is,
accordingly, dismissed.
13. It is, however, clarified that nothing stated herein shall be taken
as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or the ultimate guilt or
innocence of the petitioners. The learned trial Court shall decide the case on
the basis of the evidence led before it, uninfluenced by any observation
made in the present order.
07.09.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Waseem R. Waseem Waseem R. R. Ansari R. Ansari Ansari Ansari
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 14:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document