Authority: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Order Date: 16 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – M/s Raj Kumar Ashok Kumar and ors. (dealer and marketer); Respondent – State of Punjab.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quash of complaint No. COMA/15/2018 dated 06.03.2018 filed under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, and the related summoning order dated 30.05.2018.
  • Background:
  • On 22.08.2016, an Insecticide Inspector and Agriculture Officer inspected the shop of petitioner No.1 and drew a sample from a 5 kg pack of Fipronil 0.3 % GR (batch No. GPJ 110, mfg 09.06.2015, exp 08.06.2017) manufactured by M/s Gurjarat Pesticides Pvt. Ltd.
  • 2360 kg of the same insecticide was stored in the shop. From the 5 kg pack, 750 g were drawn and divided into three parcels of 250 g each; a Form‑XX was completed on the spot indicating the sample was taken from a company‑sealed pack.
  • One parcel was sent to the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Bathinda on 30.08.2016; the report received on 29.09.2016 declared it mis‑branded because it contained 0.235 % GR instead of 0.3 % GR.
  • Upon petitioners’ request, the same parcel was re‑analysed by the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad on 29.11.2016; the report dated 30.12.2016 again declared it mis‑branded.
  • Show‑cause notices were issued. Petitioners contended they purchased the insecticide in sealed condition and sold it likewise, asserting no responsibility for the manufacturing defect.
  • The dealer’s licence was revoked on 08.03.2017 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar Sahib; on appeal, the Joint Director, Agriculture Department restored the licence but restrained the dealer from selling the insecticide manufactured by M/s Gurjarat Pesticides Pvt. Ltd.
  • The State filed the complaint on 06.03.2018 against the dealer, the marketer (director Sahil Arora) and the manufacturer, alleging offences under the Insecticides Act.
  • The complaint led to a summoning order dated 30.05.2018 for trial.
  • Petitioners’ Submissions: They admitted being dealers/marketers; petitioner No.1 (firm) purchased the insecticide from petitioner No.3 (marketer) through its director Sahil Arora, who in turn bought it from the manufacturer. They emphasized that the sample was taken from a sealed pack, and under Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act they are protected from liability.
  • State’s Position: The State did not dispute the factual matrix regarding sealed packaging or the applicability of Section 30(3).
  • Relevant Legal Provision: Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 states:

> "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."

  • Precedent Cited: The Court relied on its earlier judgments in M/s Gagan Trading Co. and anr. Versus State of Punjab (CRM‑M‑49611‑2021) and M/s Modern Kheti Store and ors. Versus State of Punjab (CRM‑51184‑2021), decided jointly on 02.05.2023, wherein it held that dealers or distributors who receive insecticide in original sealed packaging from the manufacturer cannot be held liable for mis‑branding.
  • Paragraph 18 of that judgment emphasized that when the sample is drawn from the original sealed pack supplied by the manufacturer to the distributor and then to the dealer, neither the distributor nor the dealer can be held liable.
  • Paragraph 19 applied the same reasoning to the present case, stating that the continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of process.
  • Paragraph 20 clarified that alleged violation of Rule 10(4)(iii) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 (punishable under Section 29) cannot be sustained against the petitioners because the licence of the distributor permits direct supply, and any restriction would apply only to the manufacturer.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that, in view of Section 30(3) and the cited precedents, the continuation of the proceedings arising from the complaint (Annexure P‑2), the summoning order (Annexure P‑3) and all consequential proceedings constitute an abuse of the Court’s process.
  • Accordingly, the complaint, the summoning order and all related proceedings were quashed with respect to the petitioners.
  • The petition was allowed, and any pending applications, if any, were ordered to stand disposed of.

Topics: Insecticide Regulation, Legal Quash