M/S Rallis India Ltd And Ors vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH


Date of Decision: 07.09.2026
(1) CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M)
M/s Rallis India Ltd. and others

..Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
..Respondent
(2) CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M)
M/s Corteva Crop India Pvt. Ltd. and others
..Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
..Respondent
Sr. No. Particular

1. The date when the judgment is reserved 26.08.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 07.09.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 08.09.2026
website
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or full judgment is pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not
judgment and reasons thereof applicable.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Tara Dutt, Advocate for the petitioners.
( in CRM-M-53746 of 2023).
Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ashish Kothari, Advocate,
Ms. Jasneet Kaur, Advocate,
Ms. Pratha Pant Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Shashank Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
(in CRM-M-312 of 2024).
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 2
Mr. Aakash Yadav, AAG Punjab.

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL , JUDGE
1. Prayer in both petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, is for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.44/2023 titled State v.
M/s Vishal Trading Company and others and order dated 24.08.2023 of
learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa, summoning the petitioners to
face trial under Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 and
Rule 10(4A) of the Insecticides Rules 1971 punishable under Section 29 of
the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rules 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules
1971. CRM-M-312 of 2023 is filed by the Manufacturer-M/s Corteva Crop
India Pvt. Ltd. and others, its Director Sh. Amit Gupta and responsible
person Santosh Appasaheb Desai, while CRM-M-53746 of 2023 is filed by
Marketer-M/s Rallis India Ltd. and others, its Director Sanjiv Lal and
responsible person Ajay Kumar.
2. FACTUAL MATRIX:
Sukhjinder Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Block Mansa, District
Mansa, inspected the shop M/s Vishal Trading Company, on 01.10.2020 and
after disclosing his identity to Pawan Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Vishal
Trading Company, found 71 original sealed pieces of 180 ml each of
Insecticide Spientorm 11.7% SC bearing Batch No.C693JA5010,
manufacturing date 05.10.2029 and expiry date 04.10.2021 manufactured by
M/s Dow Agrosciences India Pvt. Ltd. Panoli, District Bharuch, Gujarat.
The Insecticide Inspector randomly selected one piece of 180 ml original
sealed packing and purchased the same vide bill No.GST/20-21/5636 dated
REEMA SAINI
01.10.2020 on credit basis. The sample was properly mixed and made
2026.09.08 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 3
homogeneous. 60 ml from the sample drawn was put in each three neat and
clean plastic containers which were secured and sealed as per rules. One part
of the sealed parcel was handed over to Sh. Pawan Kumar, Proprietor of M/s
Vishal Trading Company and remaining two were deposited in the office of
Chief Agricultural Officer, Mansa. Out of those, one part was sent by Chief
Agricultural Officer, Mansa to Office Incharge, Centralized Coding Cell,
Directorate of Plant Protection Quarantine and Storage, Central Insecticide
Laboratory Building, Faridabad, vide letter dated 05.10.2020.
3. The test report of the sample was received on 13.01.2022. There
was an error in the report, which was corrected. After correction, the report
was received back on 31.05.2022 from Central Insecticide Laboratory,
Faridabad, by e-mail. As per analysis report, the sample was ‘misbranded’ as
it did not confirm to the relevant specification with respect to its percent in
its active ingredient which was found to be 7.60% instead of 11.7%. Copy
of the analysis report was delivered to M/s Vishal Trading Company and its
Proprietor Sh. Pawan Kumar, with a show cause notice under Section 24(2)
of the Insecticides Act. The report was also delivered to M/s Dow
Agrosciences India Pvt. Ltd., through Sh. Amit Gupta and Sh. Santosh
Appasahed Desai and M/s Rallis India Ltd. (Marketer), through Sh. Sanjiv
Lal, (responsible for Director) and Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh (responsible for
conduct of business and godown incharge), with show cause notice under
Section 24(2) of the Insecticides Act, issued by Chief Agricultural Officer-
cum-licensing Authority, Mansa, vide his memo dated 07.02.2023. Reply of
the show cause notice was submitted by M/s Vishal Trading Company
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04 through Pawan Kumar, on 20.06.2022 and was found unsatisfactory. Notice
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 4
of personal hearing was given by Chief Agricultural Officer-cum-Licensing
Authority, Mansa, to the dealer for violation of provisions of the Insecticides
Act, 1968. Prosecution was thereafter launched under Sections 3(k)(i), 17,
18 and 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rule 10(4A) of the Insecticides
Rules 1971 punishable under Section 29 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 read
with Rules 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules 1971, (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Act’) against the dealer, marketer and the manufacturer.
4. SUBMISSIONS:
On behalf of the manufacturing company M/s Dow
Agrisciences India Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish
Kothari, Advocate, Ms. Jasneet Kaur, Advocate, Ms. Pratha Pant Sharma,
Advocate and Mr. Shashank Sharma, Advocate, at the outset, submitted
that name of the company was changed to Corteva Crop India Pvt. Ltd.
w.e.f. 01.11.2022 as per copy of Certificate of Incorporation of the
petitioner No.1 company (Annexure P-3). He argued that after collecting
samples from the shop of M/s Vishal Trading Company and their deposit in
the office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Mansa, one part of the sample was
sent to Central Insecticides Laboratory on 05.10.2020 and from there, to
Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh on 14.10.2020.
Referring to Section 22(6) of Insecticides Act, it was argued that one portion
of the sample was required to be submitted to the analyst forthwith, meaning
thereby it was to be sent on the same day or the next day. The sample was
sent for analyst after delay of 13 days and the delay in itself was sufficient
for quashing the case against the manufacturer.
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 5
5. Learned counsel next submitted that the Regional Pesticides
Laboratory, analysed the sample only on 22.09.2021, after a period of one
year from the date of sampling and issued the report on 04.10.2021, which
was received by Chief Agricultural Officer, Mansa (hereafter referred to as
‘CAO’) on 13.01.2022. Being erroneous, the same was sent back and
corrected report was received by CAO on 31.05.2022. By the time the
report was received, shelf life of the batch of the product was over. Show
cause notice dated 07.03.2023 was received by the manufacturer, who vide
its reply dated 27.02.2023 denied the allegations. Learned counsel further
submitted that since shelf life of the product had already expired, the
manufacturer was deprived of its valuable rights under Section 24 of the Act,
to send the sample for reanalysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory. The
delay in preparing report was violative of Section 24(1) of the Act.
6. He further argued that along with its reply, the manufacturer
submitted the quality report of the batch of product which confirmed that
the active ingredient percentage of the product was 12.2% within the
prescribed specifications. Upon the complaint being filed, learned Trial
Court took cognizance of the case and issued summons without application
of mind and without recording any reasons, in a mechanical manner. No case
was, thus, made out against the manufacturer and its officers for
misbranding of the product and learned Trial Court erred in taking
cognizance against them. In support of his arguments, he relied upon State
of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd. And Ors., (1999) 8 SCC 190,
Northern Mineral Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 726, M/s
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04 Northern Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajasthan Govt. And Another,
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 6
Manu/SC/0579/2016, Indofil Industries Limited and others V. State of
Punjab, (2017) 8 SCC 656, M/s Pepsi Food Ltd. And Another v. Special
Judicial Magistrate and Ors., (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 749, Dayle
De’souza v. Govt. of India through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner and
another AIR 2021 SC 5626, Cheminova India Limited v. State of Punjab
(2021) 8 SCC 818, SBVR Prasad v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-43740 of 2022
decided on 06.08.2022 and Sohan Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-12926
of 2018 decided on 16.01.2023.
7. On behalf of the marketer, M/s Rallis India Ltd. and others, Mr.
Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tara Dutt, urged that the summoning
order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa on 24.08.2023 was
non-speaking and sketchy. Petitioner M/s Rallis India Ltd., was neither the
manufacturer nor dealer and was named as an accused, being marketer of the
insecticide. The insecticide in question was sealed at the time of inspection
and the sample was also drawn from a sealed packet. It could not, therefore,
be said that petitioner committed any offence. The marketer could not be
held responsible for the deficiency in the active ingredients of the sample
drawn. It was further argued that the sample was taken from M/s Vishal
Trading Company on 01.10.2020 and report dated 13.01.2022 of Centralised
Coding Cell was received in the office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Mansa.
The test report was prepared after 15 months from the date of drawing the
sample, in violation of Section 24 of the Insecticide Act, which required the
analyst to deliver the report of analysis within 30 days. The delay of more
than 1 year and 2 months in preparing the test report was in gross violation
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04 of Section 24 of the Act. It was urged that by the time the report was
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 7
prepared, shelf life of the insecticide had expired on 04.10.2021, thus, the
right available to the petitioner for retesting under Section 24 of the
Insecticide Act was negated. It was further argued that petitioner No.3-Ajay
Kumar Singh, was appointed as responsible person for conduct of business
under Section 33 of the Act as well as the rules by petitioner No.1-M/s Rallis
India Ltd. and there was no occasion to implicate petitioner No.2. To support
his submissions, he referred to M/s Cheminova India Ltd and another v.
State of Punjab and another, 2021 AIR (Supreme Court) 3701, SBVR
Prasad v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-9276 of 2022, decided on 31.08.2022,
M/s Rallis India Limited and ors. Versus State of Punjab, 2022(3) RCR
(Criminal) 880, M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v. Chief Agricultural
Officers, Ferozepur and another 1990 SCC (Criminal) 623, Anil Kapoor v.
State of Punjab, CRM-21496 of 2019 decided on 07.05.2022, Naresh Kumar
and others Versus State of Punjab through Insecticides Inspector, Kapurthala
2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 202, M/s Bajwa Seed Store and others v. State of
Pufnjab 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 378, M/s Lochen Kheti Sewa Centre,
Behrampur Bet Vs. State of Punjab, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 22, M/s Pepsi
Food Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate 1998(5) SCC 749.
8. Learned State counsel submits that the sample of insecticides
was drawn from the shop of M/s Vishal Trading Company perfectly, as per
procedure and sent for analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory,
Faridabad. The report of analysis was received on 13.01.2022. There being
an error in the report, it was corrected and sent to the office of Chief
Agricultural Officer, Mansa on 31.05.2022 by e-mail. The sample was
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 8
declared misbranded. Copy of the analysis report was sent to the petitioners
and their reply was received which was thoroughly considered and found
unsatisfactory. After giving full opportunity to the dealer/marketing firm and
the manufacturing firm, complaint was filed for violation of provisions of
Section 3 (k)(i), 17, 18 and 33 of the Act, 1968 and Rules 1971, punishable
under Section 29 of the Act. Necessary sanction to launch prosecution under
Section 31(1) of the Act, was obtained from Joint Director Agriculture (Plant
Protection), Punjab, Mohali and on receipt of sanction, complaint was filed
in the competent Court which duly summoned the petitioners as accused
after going through the documents on record. He submitted that in
calculating the limitation, time required for obtaining consent/sanction was
required to be excluded, in view of Section 470(3) Cr.P.C. and that being so,
the complaint was filed within the limitation period. To support his
submissions, he relied upon M/s Garg Spray Store and others Versus State of
Punjab and another, CRM-M-34569 of 2017 decided on 11.09.2023. The
complaint and summoning order were legal, valid and both petitions
deserved to be dismissed.
9. ANALYSIS AND FINDING:
Section 22 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be
followed by the Insecticides Inspector, when he takes sample of an
insecticide. The same is reproduced under:
‘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.
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 9
(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
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
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh
such that it is likely to deteriorate or be otherwise damaged by

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 10
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.
10. As to how the report of the insecticide analyst is to be
considered, is explained by Section 24 of the Act, which reads thus:
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
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
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh
to be sent for test or analysis to the said laboratory, 2 [which shall,

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 11
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.
11. 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 controversion of the
report of the insecticide analyst, is now well settled.
12. 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,
we find, that a vital right vested in the appellants/accused to get the
sample 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)”
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 12
13. For clarity, undisputed facts of the case are illustrated in tabular
form as below:
Date
01.10.2020 Sample of insecticide Spientorm 11.7% SC
bearing Batch No.C693JA5010, manufacturing
date 05.10.2029 and expiry date 04.10.2021
manufactured by M/s Dow Agrosciences India
Pvt. Ltd. Panoli, District Bharuch, Gujarat, was
drawn from the premises of dealer M/s Vishal
Trading Company.
05.10.2020 One part of the sample was sent by CAO, Mansa
to Incharge , Centralized Coding Cell, Directorate
of Plant Protection Quarantine and Storage,
Central Insecticide Laboratory Building,
Faridabad
14.10.2020 Samples were sent to Regional Pesticides Testing
Laboratory, for analysis.
04.10.2021 Shelf life of sample expired.
13.01.2022 Test report of the sample was received in the
office of CAO Mansa.
31.05.2022 Corrected report of the analysis received in the
office of CAO Mansa.
07.02.2023 Show cause notice under Section 24(2) of the Act
was issued by the CAO to Manufacturer-M/s
Dow Agrisciences and Marketer-M/s Rallis India
Ltd. along with copy of analysis report.
24.08.2023 Insecticides Inspector instituted a complaint
against the petitioners and the same day,
summoning order was passed.
14. The principal argument of the manufacturing company M/s
Corteva Crop India Pvt. Ltd., is that by the time the analysis report was
conveyed to the Company, shelf life of the sample had already expired and a
valuable right conferred on the manufacturing company to have the sample
retested from Central Insecticides Laboratory, was taken away, thus,
prejudicing them in their defence and sending of the sample to the Central
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04 Insecticides Laboratory at a later stage would be of no consequence.
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 13
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:
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 not
sending 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.
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 14
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. Section 24(3) of the Act, makes it evident that accused, within
28 days of the receipt of copy of the report of the insecticide analyst, to
avoid its evidentiary value, is required to notify in writing to the Insecticide
Inspector or the Court before which the proceeding is pending, that it
intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. Section 24(4) of
the Act lays down that when accused has notified its intention of adducing
evidence in controversion of the report of Insecticide nalyst under Section
24(3) of the Act, the Court may, of its own motion or in its discretion, at the
request, either of the complainant or the accused cause the sample to be sent
for analysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory. Under the scheme of the
Act, in such an eventuality, the legal fiction that the report of the Insecticide
Analyst shall be conclusive looses its conclusive character. There is no doubt
that in the present case, the shelf life of insecticide Spientorm 11.7% SC
bearing Batch No.C693JA5010, expired on 04.10.2021 prior to receipt of
report of Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Sector 31A, Chandigarh by
the CAO.
17. Report of the Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, on record
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04
as Annexure R1, shows that the test/analysis of the sample was completed
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 15
on 22.09.2021. The said report was received in the office of CAO on
13.01.2022 and sent back on account of an error, which was corrected and
the corrected report, declaring the sample misbranded was received on
31.05.2022. The sample of insecticide was required to be analysed promptly
to preserve right of the petitioners for having it re-tested by the Central
Insecticide Laboratory. The whole exercise of sending the sample for
analysis, analysis and correction in the report, was done in a callous and
causal manner, depriving the petitioners of their right for re-analysis of the
sample. Due to inaction and lack of diligence by functionaries of the State,
shelf life of the sample of insecticide expired, on which account, the
manufacturing company was deprived of an opportunity to seek re-analysis
of the sample by Central Insecticide Laboratory. Since valuable right of the
manufacturing company was defeated, on this sole ground, criminal
prosecution cannot proceed against it, its Director and responsible officers.
On account of the inordinate delay in analysis of the sample, resulting in
loss of the right of re-analysis, continuation of prosecution against the
petitioners would be abuse of process of law. Thus, on this sole ground, the
complaint and summoning order deserves to be quashed.
18. Though, the term forthwith used in Section 22(6) of the Act, is
not defined under the Act, in common parlance, it means immediately.
Under section 22(6) of the Act, sample drawn from the accused is required
to be sent to the Insecticide Analyst for test or analyst forthwith i.e. either
on the day of the sampling or by the next date or at the most by next
working day in case the next day is a Holiday. The sample in the case before
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04 us was sent to Central Insecticide Laboratory after 6 days on 5.10.2020 and
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 16
to the Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, after 4 days on 14.10.2020.
Thus, there is a delay of 14 days in sending of the sample.
19. In B.S. Rana versus State of Punjab, 2008(3) RCR (Criminal)
210 , a Co-ordinate Bench, was confronted with a similar issue. In that case,
sample was drawn on 29.10.2003 and the same reached the laboratory on
17.11.2003. It was held that provisions of Section 22(6) of the Act were
mandatory, requiring the sample to be sent to the Analyst forthwith and that
violation of the said provisions rendered the complaint liable to be quashed.
20. In case of M/s S.S. Fertilizer and another Vs. State of Punjab,
2017(2) RCR (Criminal) 59 , the delay of 4 days in sending the sample was
held to be fatal as the mandatory requirement of Section 22(6) of the Act,
was not complied with.
21. In Sohan Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-12926 of 2018
decided on 16.01.2023, the Court held that after delay of 6 days in sending
sample, it did not lie in the mouth of the respondent to plead that the second
sample was sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory or that the sample was
received in the State Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Bhatinda, with its seal
intact.
22. Thus, the delay in sending the sample for analysis also works
against the respondent/State and affords an additional ground to quash the
complaint and all subsequent proceedings.
23. On behalf of the marketer-M/s Rallis India Ltd. and others, it
has been argued that since the sample was drawn from sealed packets, the
marketer could not be held responsible for the deficiency in the active
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04 ingredients.
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 17
24. Section 30 of the Act, which is relevant to the controversy is
reproduced hereinbelow:
‘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.’
25. Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v.
Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur and another (1990) SCC (Criminal)
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh
623, held as under : -

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 18
“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.”
26. The obligation and responsibility of a marketing agent and its
liability to criminal prosecution has been considered by Coordinate Benches
of this Court in various pronouncements.
27. 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
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh
very fairly stated that the petitioner is not the

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 19
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.
28. 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. The said
manufacturing company i.e. M/s Fungicide 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
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh
respondents that sample was drawn from sealed and

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 20
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.
29. 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
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 21
traded in the same when the sample was drawn from a sealed package and
was properly stored.
30. In Anil Kapoor v. State of Punjab, CRM-21496 of 2019 decided
on 07.05.2022, also the Court was confronted with a similar question
regarding liability of a marketing agent of the insecticide. The Court held
that the marketer was not responsible for the quality of the product or for
ensuring the labelled ingredient of the same and could not be prosecuted for
merely dealing with the product, over which they if no control with respect
to its quality and content.
31. It is common ground between the parties that M/s Rallis India
Ltd. was the marketer of the insecticide. The sample of insecticide was
drawn from the shop of dealer M/s Vishal Trading Company, Old Grain
Market, Mansa, who had a valid licence, for the business of sale, stocking
and exhibition, from the Licensing Authority, at the relevant time. As per
Para-4 of the complaint, the Insecticide Inspector found 71 original sealed
pieces of 180 ml each of Insecticide Spientorm 11.7% SC bearing Batch
No.C693JA5010, manufacturing date 05.10.2029 and expiry date
04.10.2021 manufactured by M/s Dow Agrosciences India Pvt. Ltd. Panoli,
District Bharuch, Gujarat.
32. It is not complainant's case that the insecticide was stored
improperly in violation of the Act and Rules, thereunder or that the sealed
bag was not kept in the same state as when it was acquired after purchase.
The marketing agent M/s Rallis India Ltd., thus, had no occasion to tamper
with the contents of the sealed packets. It is only the manufacturer, who can
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04 be held responsible for the quality of the product and for ensuring the
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 22
labelled ingredients. The marketer, who merely traded in the insecticide,
thus, cannot be held liable for criminal prosecution for mis-branding of the
insecticide. As such, M/s Rallis India Ltd., is also not liable for prosecution
for any of the offences of misbranding under Section Sections 3(k)(i) and 17,
18 and 33 of the Act.
33. There is yet another significant aspect of the matter. The
complaint has been filed against the manufacturing company M/s Dow
Agrisciences India Pvt. Ltd., Amit Gupta its Director, and Santosh
Appasahed Desai responsible person, as quality control incharge. Similarly,
besides, the marketer M/s Rallis India Ltd., prosecution has been launched
against Sanjiv Lal its Director and Ajay Kumar Singh responsible person for
conduct of business and godown incharge.
34. It has been argued that the Director of the manufacturing
company and the marketing company could not have been summoned in a
case of “misbranding” of the insecticide, when specific persons had been
nominated for conduct of business.
35. Section 33 of the of the Insecticides Act, 1968 needs to be
reproduced for ready reference:
Section 33 in The Insecticides Act, 1968
“33. Offences by companies.-
(1) Whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by a
company, every person who at the time the offence was committed,
was in charge of, or was responsible to the company for the
conduct of the business of, the company, as well as the company,
shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04
such person liable to any punishment under this Act if he
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 23
proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or
that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of
such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), 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.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this section,-
(a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or
other association of individuals; and
(b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.”
36. Thus, it is more than clear that when an offence has been
committed by a company, only those persons, who, at the time the offence
was committed, were in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of
the company, as well as the company would be liable. In view of Sub-
Section (2) for attracting liability of the Director, Manager, Secretary or any
other Officer of the company for offences committed by the company, their
consent, connivance or neglect has to be established.
37. The scope of Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 has been
considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in S tate of NCT of Delhi Vs. Rajiv
Khurana 2010(11) SCC 469 , wherein referring to its previous decisions in
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Others
1983(1) RCR (Criminal) 73, State of Haryana Vs. Brij Lal Mittal and Others
1998(2) RCR (Criminal) 608, K.P.G. Nair Vs. Jindal Menthol India Ltd.
(2001) 10 SCC 218, Sabitha Ramamurthy and Another Vs. R.B.S.
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 24
Channabasavaradhya 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 296 and K.K. Ahuja Vs. V.K.
and Another 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 571 , the Court observed as under:
“18. The ratio of all these cases is that the complainant is required
to state in the complaint how a Director who is sought to be made
an accused, was in charge of the business of the company or
responsible for the conduct of company’s business. Every Director
need not be and is not in charge of the business of the company. If
that is the position with regard to a Director, it is needless to
emphasise that in the case of non-Director officers, there is all the
more necessary to state what were his duties and responsibilities in
the conduct of business of the company and how and in what
manner he is responsible or liable.”
38. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. Cheminova
India Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Punjab and another 2021 SCC Online SC
573 and the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Raghuram Shetty Vs. State
of Punjab 2022(4) PLR 722, C.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab 2017(4)
RCR (Criminal) 694, M/s. Crop Chemicals India Ltd. and Another Vs. State
of Punjab 2019(1) RCR (Criminl) 72, Om Parkash Aggarwal Vs. State of
Haryana 2015(2) RCR (Criminal) 625 and Surinder Singh Kooner Vs. State
of Punjab 2015(4) RCR (Criminal) 996 and S.B.V.R Prasad vs. State of
Punjab, CRM-M-9276 of 2022, decided on 31.08.2022, have reiterated the
same principles.
39. Thus, the legal position is that a Director or an officer of the
company can be summoned as an accused only if it is proved that offence
was committed with their consent or connivance or is attributable to any
neglect on their behalf. Complainant is required to plead an aver in the
complaint as to how the Director was responsible as per provisions of
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh
Section 33(2) of the Act.

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 25
40. Every Director need not be and is not incharge of the business
of the company. It was necessary to plead and aver regarding the duties and
responsibilities in the conduct of business, how and in what manner, the
Directors were responsible for day today affairs of the company. The
specific allegations regarding the consent, connivance or neglect of
Directors of M/s Corteva Crop India Ltd. and M/s Rallis India Ltd.,
resulting in misbranding are conspicuously missing from the complaint.
Thus, no vicarious liability can be fastened upon the directors, particularly
when the complaint mentions that Santosh Appasahed Desai, was the
responsible person as quality control incharge of M/s Dow Agrisciences
India Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh was the responsible person for
conduct of business and godown incharge of M/s Rallis India Ltd.
41. Initiation of prosecution and summoning of an accused to stand
trial has serious consequences, including monetary loss, humiliation and
disrepute in society, sacrifice of time and effort to prepare defence and
anxiety of uncertain times. Criminal law should not be set into motion as a
matter of course or without adequate and necessary investigation of facts and
mere suspicion, or when the violation of law is doubtful. It is the duty and
responsibility of public officers to proceed responsibly and ascertain the true
and correct facts. Execution of law without appropriate acquaintance with
legal provisions and comprehensive sense of their application may result in
an innocent being prosecution. Equally, it is the Court’s duty not to issue
summons in a mechanical and routine manner. If done so, the entire purpose
of laying down a detailed procedure under Chapter XV of the 1973 Code get
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04 frustrated........... It is the duty of the Magistrate to apply his mind to see
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 26
whether on the basis of the allegations made and the evidence, a prima-facie
case for taking cognizance and summoning the accused is made out or not.
(Vide Dayle De’souza v. Govt. of India through Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner and another AIR 2021 SC 5626).
42. The summoning order vide which the petitioners were
summoned by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24.08.2023 is reproduced
hereinbelow:
‘Complaint under Insecticides act, 1968 presented today. It be
checked and registered. The complaint has been filed by the
Insecticide Inspector in his official capacity as such the recording
of the preliminary evidence is dispensed with. On the perusal of the
material available on record there are sufficient grounds to proceed
against the accused for having committed the offence punishable
under the Insecticides Act, 1968. Let the accused be summoned for
06.11.2023.’
43. The above order is conspicuous by absence of reasons for
issuing process against the accused and is reflective of complete non-
application of mind. On this ground too, summoning order dated 24.08.2023
cannot sustain.
44. Since the report of analysis was received on
31.01.2022/30.05.2022 and complaint was initiated within 2 years on
24.08.2023, the question of complaint being barred by limitation does not
arise. M/s Garg Spray Store and others Versus State of Punjab and another
(supra) relied upon by learned State counsel is of no help.
45. For the reasons above, both petitions are allowed. Criminal
REEMA SAINI
Complaint No.44/2023 titled State v. M/s Vishal Trading Company and
2026.09.08 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-53746 of 2023 (O&M) and
CRM-M-312 of 2024 (O&M) 27
others and summoning order dated 24.08.2023 of learned Judicial Magistrate
Ist Class, Mansa, are quashed qua the petitioners.
46. Ordered accordingly.
47. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
48. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another
connected case.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE
07.09.2026
reema
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
REEMA SAINI
2026.09.08 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh