[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Herbicides (India) Ltd. And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Others on 18 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.29273 of 2020
Reserved on: 07.04.2026
Pronounced on: 18.04.2026
Uploaded on: 20.04.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is
Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment
M/s Herbicides (India) Ltd. and another
...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Argued by:- Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab.
*****
MANDEEP PANNU, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
for quashing of Complaint No. COMA/37/2017 dated 04.08.2017 (Annexure
P-13) under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968
read with Section 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 and all the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the summoning order
dated 04.08.2017 (Annexure P-14), vide which the petitioners have been
summoned to face trial before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Malerkotla.
2. The impugned order dated 04.08.2017 (Annexure P-14) has
been passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malerkotla,
authenticity of this order/judgment
whereby the petitioners/accused have been summoned to face trial in the
complaint filed under the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the
Rules framed thereunder.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the present
complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be quashed. It is submitted that
the complaint has been filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay and is
hopelessly barred by limitation. The sample in question was allegedly drawn
on 21.09.2011 and the report of the Analyst was prepared on 19.10.2011 and
received shortly thereafter. Even the re-analysis report was received in last
week of June 2012, however, no steps were taken by the respondent for a
considerable period and sanction for prosecution was sought only on
06.01.2014 and granted on 03.07.2014, whereas the complaint came to be
filed only on 04.08.2017, i.e. after more than six years from the date of
analysis report. It is thus argued that in view of Section 468 Cr.P.C., the
complaint is clearly time barred. It is further contended that the limitation for
filing the complaint is to be reckoned from the date of receipt of the Public
Analyst report and not from the date of sampling, and reliance has been
placed upon judicial precedents to contend that delayed filing of the
complaint vitiates the prosecution. It is also submitted that the re-analysis
conducted at the instance of the accused cannot extend the period of
limitation. It is also argued that the mandatory provisions of the Insecticides
Act have not been complied with, inasmuch as the sample became unfit for
analysis due to lapse of time and the petitioners have been deprived of their
valuable right to have the sample tested through the Court. It is further
authenticity of this order/judgment
contended that there is no specific averment in the complaint as to how the
petitioners were responsible for the alleged offence, particularly petitioner
No. 2, who is stated to be a non-executive Director and not responsible for
day-to-day affairs of the company, and thus cannot be held vicariously liable
under Section 33 of the Act. Still further, it is contended that no proper
sanction as required under Section 31 of the Act has been accorded, as there
has been no application of mind by the sanctioning authority and even the
reply submitted by the petitioners was not considered. It is also submitted that
no show cause notice was served upon the petitioners and the procedure
adopted by the Insecticide Inspector was contrary to law, including non-
joining of independent witnesses and non-compliance of statutory
requirements while drawing the sample. It is thus prayed that in view of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint as well as the summoning
order are liable to be quashed.
4. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the present
petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the
sample in question was duly drawn on 21.09.2011 from the premises of
respondent No.2 and the same was got tested from the State Insecticides
Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana on 19.10.2011. Thereafter, on the request of
respondent No.2, the reference sample was sent for re-analysis to the Central
Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad on 14.06.2012. It is further submitted that
after obtaining the necessary sanction/consent, the complaint was filed
before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malerkotla on 04.08.2017
along with an application under Section 473 Cr.P.C. for condonation of
authenticity of this order/judgment
delay, which learned trial Court was competent to allow. It is further
contended that learned trial Court, after considering the material available on
record, has rightly taken cognizance and issued summoning orders and there
is no illegality in the same. It is also submitted that the provisions of Section
468 Cr.P.C. are not attracted in a strict sense as the delay has been
sufficiently explained on administrative grounds and the Court has the power
to condone the same. The respondents further submit that the sample was
tested as per the prescribed procedure and within the stipulated time, both by
the State and Central laboratories, and therefore, there is no illegality in the
testing process. It is also contended that the allegations regarding non-
compliance of statutory provisions and lack of responsibility of the
petitioners are matters of trial and cannot be adjudicated at this stage.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record of the case.
6. The impugned summoning order dated 04.08.2017 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malerkotla reads as under:
"Complaint presented before me as the learned Presiding
Officer is on maternity leave w.e.f. 30.05.2017 to
24.11.2017 and undersigned has been directed to look after
the work vide letter bearing endorsement no 3532 dated
30.05.2017.
Notice to accused be issued for 03.11.2017."
7. The aforesaid order, reproduced as such, clearly reveals that
the learned trial Court has not recorded any satisfaction regarding the
existence of a prima-facie case, nor has it discussed the material available
authenticity of this order/judgment
on record. The order is completely non-speaking and reflects total non-
application of mind.
8. Another significant aspect of the matter is with regard to
limitation. It is now well settled that the period of limitation for launching
prosecution in such matters is to be reckoned from the date of receipt of the
report of the Public Analyst and not from the date of collection of the
sample. In the present case, the report of analysis is of the year 2011 and
even the re-analysis report was received in the year 2012, whereas the
complaint has been filed only on 04.08.2017, i.e. after a considerable delay
of several years. Though an application under Section 473 Cr.P.C. for
condonation of delay is stated to have been filed, there is nothing in the
impugned order to indicate that the learned trial Court has applied its mind
to the question of limitation or has passed any order condoning the delay in
accordance with law.
9. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the impugned summoning order cannot be sustained. However, instead
of quashing the complaint outright, it would be appropriate to remand the
matter to the learned trial Court for fresh consideration.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.08.2017 (Annexure
P-14) is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court to
consider the complaint afresh and to pass a speaking order in accordance
with law, after duly considering all relevant aspects, including the question
of limitation, the application, if any, under Section 473 Cr.P.C., and the
material placed on record in the form of preliminary evidence. The learned
authenticity of this order/judgment
trial Court shall decide whether sufficient grounds exist for summoning the
petitioners, without being influenced by any observations made hereinabove.
11. Disposed of accordingly.
12. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
18.04.2026 JUDGE
neetu
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
