Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Cheminova India Limited And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 8 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002772
CRM-M-24646-2018
CRM-M-39675-2019 -1-
250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 08.01.2025
1. CRM-M-24646-2018 (O&M)
M/s Cheminova India Ltd. and others
... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
2. CRM-M-39675-2019 (O&M)
M/s Sushil Kheti Sewa Centre and another
... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate
for the petitioners (in both cases).
Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG Punjab.
*******
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002772
CRM-M-24646-2018
1. This common judgment shall dispose of aforementioned two
petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short 'Cr.P.C.') [now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(for short 'BNSS')] for quashing the complaint bearing No.23/2017 dated
18.08.2017 under Sections 3(K)(1), 17, 18, 29, 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968
(for short 'Act of 1968'), filed against the petitioners, which is pending before
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhuri.
2. Briefly, the facts are that on 03.12.2013 at about 02:30 p.m.,
respondent No.2-complainant inspected the premises of respondent No.3-M/s
Sushil Kheti Sewa Centre, Tehsil Dhuri District Sangrur in the presence of
Agriculture Sub-inspector, Dhuri. He disclosed the identity to respondent
No.4-Sushil Kumar, being proprietor of respondent No.3, who was present on
the spot. Respondent No.2 observed that respondent No.3 was selling,
exhibiting for sale and stocking pesticide including Indoxacarb 14.5% SC
brand Lashkar. The said pesticide was purchased by the dealer directly from
petitioner No.1-manufacturer. Thereafter, respondent No.2 drew some samples
of the said product and one sealed sample was sent to the Insecticide Testing
Laboratory, Bathinda for analysis on 03.12.2013. The first sample report was
not confirming to IS specifications containining only 13.24% SC active
ingredient against 14% SC, which is printed on the label of container and
hence, the said product was declared to be misbranded. Consequently, a show
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002772
CRM-M-24646-2018
cause notice was served to the accused on 01.01.2014. Responded No.4 made
a request for re-analysis, which was allowed on 04.04.2014. The second
sample report dated 08.09.2014 also declared the product to be misbranded, as
to the relevant IS specifications, present active ingredient found to be 12.73%
SC instead of the required 14% SC. After receiving sanction, as per the
requirement of Section 31(1) of Act of 1968, criminal proceedings had been
initiated against the accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that
petitioner No.4 is responsible person for quality control of the formulation of
the said product. This fact was also intimated to the respondents by petitioner
No.2. As such, criminal prosecution against petitioners No.1, 2, 3 and 5 is
misconceived. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken a specific
ground that no Court can take cognizance of an offence beyond the period of
limitation provided under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 514 of BNSS). In
the instant case, first report of Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Bathinda
received on 12.12.2013, while the complaint was filed on 18.08.2017, after a
delay of 03 years, 08 months and 06 days. The offence under Section 29 of Act
of 1968 is punishable with two years of imprisonment, therefore, as per Section
468(2)(c) of Cr.P.C. (now Section 514(2)(c) of BNSS), the period of limitation
for taking cognizance of the same would be three years. In support of his
arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon judgments of this
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002772
CRM-M-24646-2018
Court in the case of M/s Amsons Laboratories Private Limited Vs. State of
Punjab, CRM-M-38050 of 2022, decided on 07.02.2024, Lalit Mohan Mehta
and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2024 (2) RCR (Criminal) 51, M/s Cheminova
India Ltd. & another Vs. State of Punjab and others, S.L.P (Crl.) No.4102 of
2020.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the
petitioner(s) and submits that learned trial Court has rightly passed the order
dated 18.08.2017 summoning the petitioners.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that the sample in the
present case was drawn on 03.12.2013 and report from the Insecticide Testing
Laboratory, Bathinda was received on 12.12.2013. A show cause notice on the
basis of aforementioned report was issued on 01.01.2014, whereas the
complaint (supra) was filed on 18.08.2017 and it was in the knowledge of
Insecticide Inspector with regard to offence under Section 29 of Act of 1968.
Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment of this Court in M/s Amsons
laboratories Private Ltd.'s case (supra), in which it has been held as under:-
"The offence under Section 29 of the Act is punishable with 02
years of imprisonment, therefore, as per Section 468(2)(c) of
Cr.P.C., the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the same
would be three years. No doubt, the Court has the power to extend
the period of limitation in certain cases under Section 473 Cr.P.C.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002772
CRM-M-24646-2018
and an application to that effect was also filed by the complainant
in the present case, but the learned trial Court has erred by
passing the impugned summoning order without deciding on the
question of delay since the complaint was filed after the expiry of
the limitation period. This Court in M/s Kheti Sewa Centre,
Ludhiana v. State of Punjab 2003(1) R.C.R(Criminal) 310 and
M/s Balajit Sales Corporation Vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-
18077-2011 decided on 08.10.2012 had set aside the proceedings
arising out of complaints under the Act filed after the expiration of
the limitation period."
6. A two Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s
Cheminova India Ltd.'s case (supra), speaking through Justice R. Subhash
Reddy, has held as under: -
"Section 468 of Cr.PC prohibits taking cognizance of an offence
after the lapse of period of limitation. As per subsection (2)(c)
thereof, the period of limitation is three years, if the offence is
punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but
not exceeding three years. Section 469 of Cr.PC deals with the
'commencement of the period of limitation'. As per the said
provision, the period of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall
commence on the date of offence or where the commission of the
offence was not [email protected].(Crl.)No.4102 of 2020 known to the
person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first
day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person
or to any police officer, whichever is earlier."
7. As such, case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Cheminova India Ltd.'s case
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002772
CRM-M-24646-2018
(supra).
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the
ratio of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, both these petitions are
allowed and the complaint bearing No.23/2017 dated 18.08.2017 under
Sections 3(K)(1), 17, 18, 29, 33 of Act of 1968, pending before learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Dhuri, is hereby set aside.
9. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
08.01.2025 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
