Nomination of one responsible officer does not bar prosecution of other company officers under Section 33.

An Insecticide Inspector inspected the premises of M/s Garg Farm Service, Raman Mandi, on 03.07.2018 and drew a sample of Fipronil 0.3% GR, Batch No. MCPF1807, manufactured by M/s Modesto Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd.

The sample was deposited with the Chief Agriculture Officer on 04.07.2018 and sent to the State Insecticide Testing Laboratory on 05.07.2018. The State Laboratory found the sample misbranded, containing 0.02% instead of the prescribed 0.3% active ingredient. On re-analysis, the Central Insecticides Laboratory also found the sample misbranded, with 0.17% active ingredient.

After notices and written sanction under Section 31(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, a complaint was filed under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Act read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971. Petitioner No. 1 was described as the Director of the manufacturing and marketing company, while Petitioner No. 2 was described as its authorised Godown Incharge.

They sought quashing of the complaint, summoning order dated 06.09.2019, and consequential proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Whether the petitioners’ prosecution was liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely because Surinder Singh had been nominated as the company’s responsible person for quality control under Section 33 of the Insecticides Act.

Whether the alleged two-day delay in transmitting the sealed sample to the State Laboratory rendered the prosecution legally unsustainable.

Whether failure to conduct a separate inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., as the petitioners resided outside the Magistrate’s territorial jurisdiction, invalidated the summoning order.

Whether the brief summoning order dated 06.09.2019 was non-speaking and demonstrated non-application of mind.

The Court applied Section 482 Cr.P.C., which permits quashing only where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process or where the allegations are manifestly baseless.

Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, govern misbranding and the liability of companies and their responsible officers.

Section 33(2) further permits prosecution of a Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer where the offence is attributable to that person’s consent, connivance or neglect; nomination of one responsible person does not, by itself, immunise other officers against whom specific allegations exist.

The Court also considered Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and relied on The State of Kerala v. M/s Panacea Biotec Ltd., 2026 INSC 200, holding that where a written complaint is made by a public servant in discharge of official duties, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and witnesses on oath, and a separate inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is not mandatory in such circumstances.

The effect of sample-transmission delay and chain of custody is ordinarily a matter for trial where the sample was sealed, kept in safe custody and its seal was found intact.

The Court held that the complaint contained specific allegations concerning the petitioners’ positions, responsibilities and alleged failure to discharge duties relating to the distribution of the misbranded insecticide.

Whether they were actually in charge of the company’s business, or whether the offence was attributable to their negligence, required evaluation of evidence and could not be conclusively decided in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The nomination of Surinder Singh as the quality-control officer did not terminate the prosecution because the complaint contained separate allegations against the petitioners.

The two-day interval between drawing and dispatch of the sample was not fatal, particularly since the sample remained sealed in official custody, the laboratory recorded that the seal was intact and tallying, and both the State and Central Laboratories found the sample non-conforming.

The objection under Section 202 Cr.P.C. failed because the complaint was instituted by a statutory Insecticide Inspector acting in discharge of official duties, attracting the principle stated in Panacea Biotec.

Although the summoning order was brief, it could not be viewed in isolation from the complaint and accompanying material, which disclosed specific allegations against the petitioners.

The written sanction under Section 31(1) further supported the continuation of the prosecution.

The complaint, summoning order dated 06.09.2019 and consequential proceedings were not quashed; the petition was dismissed.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the question of continuation of proceedings and would not prejudice the petitioners or influence the trial court’s determination of guilt or innocence.