In a petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing a complaint dated 23-04-2025 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, as well as a summoning order dated 25-04-2025 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1st Class), Batala (Gurdaspur), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Mandeep Pannu quashed the impugned complaint as well as the summoning order while allowing the present petition.
The impugned complaint was filed by the Insecticide Inspector, Dera Baba Nanak, Gurdaspur (Inspector), against the dealer firm, manufacturer company, marketing company, and their officials, alleging that the insecticide sample was misbranded. The Inspector inspected the dealer’s premises and found that the subject insecticide was in stock, sealed in packaging. A sample was drawn and, upon analysis, was found to be misbranded because the active ingredient did not conform to the prescribed I.S. specifications. Thereafter, at the instance of the dealer, the second counterpart of the sample was sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory for re-analysis, wherein also, the sample was declared to be misbranded.
The respondent department filed the present complaint against various accused persons and alleged that the subject insecticide was manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold with the knowledge and consent of the accused persons. The present petitioner was arrayed as an accused because it was the marketing company for the subject insecticide, and it was alleged that the petitioners had marketed the insecticide while failing to ensure compliance with the prescribed standards.
Based on this, the impugned summoning order was passed to summon all accused persons to face trial. The petitioners assailed the complaint and the summoning order on the grounds that the sample was drawn from the dealer’s premises and not the petitioners’. It was asserted that petitioner 1 was merely a distributor and not the manufacturer of the subject insecticide.
The Court stated that the complaint did not allege that the petitioners were the manufacturers of the subject insecticide or that they had any role in the formulation, composition, processing, etc. of the products. The Court perused Sections 17 and 18 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and stated that the statutory prohibition primarily operates against the person who imports, manufactures, sells, or distributes a misbranded insecticide in contravention of the provisions of the Act. However, for criminal liability, there must be a specific allegation to show the role attributable to the accused in the misbranding.
The Court said that in the present case, no factual foundation was laid down in the complaint to disclose how the petitioners were responsible for the alleged defect and that the mere use of “consent”, “connivance”, or “negligence” in a mechanical manner, without any supporting materials, would not be sufficient to prosecute the petitioners. It was stated that once the role of the petitioners was confined to that of distributors, and no allegation of adulteration, tampering, or manipulation was attributable to them, the essentials of Sections 17 and 18 were not satisfied.
The Court stated that before invoking Section 33 of the Act, the prosecution must first establish that the company itself had committed an offence. It was said that no criminal liability could be fastened upon the petitioners by taking recourse to Section 33 of the Act. The Court found the ratio of M/s Rallis India Limited & Ors. v. State of Punjab (CRM-M No. 20338/2017) applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein it was held that persons merely dealing with the product without any control over its manufacturing process, quality, or contents cannot be held vicariously liable merely because they marketed the same. Hence, the Court held that the continuation of the impugned complaint and the consequential proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Thus, the petition was allowed, and the impugned complaint, along with the summoning order and all the consequential proceedings, were quashed for the present petitioners.
Appearances:
For Petitioners – Ms. Ekakshra Mahajan Mandhar
For Respondents – Mr. Hardeep Singh Wadhwa (DAG, Punjab)
