M/S Thakar Chemicals Ltd and Ors v. State of Punjab Through Insecticides Inspector

INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAoAToo CHANDIGARH CRM-M-31429-2022 DateoofoDecision:-o18.11.2025 Uploadedoon:oo19.11.2025 M/SoTHAKARoCHEMICALSoLTD.&oOTHERS ……Petitioners Versus STATEoOFoPUNJAB ……Respondent CORAM: HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoJASJIToSINGHoBEDI Present: Mr.oRakeshoVerma,oAdvocateoando Mr.oManishoVerma,oAdvocateo forotheopetitioners. Mr.oHarkanwaroJeetoSingh,oAsstt.oA.G.,oPunjab. JASJIToSINGHoBEDI,oJ. TheoprayeroinotheopresentopetitionounderoSectiono482oCr.P.C. foroquashingoofotheocomplaintoNo.COMA-41oofo2017odatedo11.12.2017 (AnnexureoP-1)oregisteredounderoSectionso3(k)(I),o17,o18,o33oando29oof InsecticidesoAct,o1968oreadowithoRuleo27(5)oofoInsecticidesoRules,o1971 titled o as o State o through o Insecticides o Inspector oVs. o M/s o Sandhu oAgro Chemicalso&oothers,otheosummoningoorderodatedo09.02.2021o(AnnexureoP-2)oandoallosubsequentoproceedingsoarisingotherefrom.

¶2Theobriefofactsoofotheocaseoareothatoono17.07.2012ooneoSarwan Kumar,oInsecticideoInspectorovisitedotheopremisesoofoM/soSandhuoAgro Chemicals,oMuktsaroRoad,oNearoFCIoGodown,oJalalabado(W)oandodrewoa sampleoofoMonocrotophoso36%oSL,obearingoBatchoNo.951omanufacturing dateoFebruary,o2012oandoexpiryodateoJuly,o2013o250oMLoxo3opartsowereoput JITESH LAL inootherocontainersoforosampleopurposeoofoanalysisowhichowereofurtheroputoin threeopolytheneobagsoseparately.oThenotheseopolytheneobagsowereoputoin threeoseparateoclothobags.oTheomanufactureroandosupplierowasoallegedotoobe theopetitioneroNo.1-Company.

¶3Theosamplesowereosentoforoanalysisoandotheoreportodated

23.07.2012oofotheoPublicoAnalystoshowingotheosampleotoobeomisbranded. TheoPublicoAnalystoreportodatedo09.08.2012oisoattachedoasoAnnexureoP-3oto theopetition.o

¶4Afterotheocompletionoofotheousualoformalities,oaocomplaint datedo11.12.2017owasoinstitutedoinotheoCourtoofoSuboDivisionaloJudicial Magistrate,oJalalabado(W)oonotheobasisoofowhichotheoaccusedocameotoobe summonedotoofaceotrial.oTheocopyoofotheocomplaintodatedo11.12.2017oand summoningoorderodatedo09.02.2021opassedobyotheoSDJM,oJalalabado(W), areoattachedoasoAnnexuresoP-1o&oP-2orespectively.oo

¶5Theoaforementionedocomplaintodatedo11.12.2017o(AnnexureoP-1)oandosummoningoorderodatedo09.02.2021o(AnnexureoP-2)oareounder challengeoinotheopresentopetition.

¶6Theolearnedocounseloforotheopetitionersocontendsothatothereohas beenoaodelayoinofilingoofotheocomplaintoofoasomuchoaso05oyears,o03omonths ando28odays.oTheooffenceounderotheoActoisopunishableobyoaomaximumoofo02 yearsoimprisonmentoandotherefore,otheocomplaintocouldohaveobeenofiledoonly withino03oyearsofromotheodateoofoknowledgeoofotheocommissionoofothe offence.oTheoreportoofotheopublicoanalystowasoavailableoono09.08.2012oand theocomplaintowasoinstitutedoono11.12.2017.oEvenoifotheoperiodobetween

28.01.2014o(dateoonowhichotheosanctionowasosoughtofromotheoappropriate authority)otootheotimeosanctionowasograntedoono17.12.2016o(byosanctioning authority)owasoexcluded,oevenothen,otheocomplaintowasohopelesslyotime barred.oRelianceoisoplacedoonotheojudgmentsoinotheocasesoofoM/soCheminova IndiaoLtd.o&oanotheroVs.oStateoofoPunjabo&oanother,o2021(3)oR.C.R. (Criminal)o750,M/soDoabaoSeedoStoreo&oanotheroVs.oStateoofoPunjab, 2018(4)oLawoHeraldo3396,oM/soInsecticidesoIndiaoLtd.o&oanotheroVs.oState ofoPunjab,oCRM-M-4744-2018,odecidedoono16.11.2018 oand oZimidara Khetio&oanotheroVs.oStateoofoPunjab,o2019(1)oR.C.R.o(Criminal)o288.

¶7On o the o othero hand, o theo learned o Stateo counsel o whileo not disputingotheoaforementionedopropositionoofolawocontendsothatotheonatureoof theoallegationsolevelledoagainstotheopetitionersodoonotoentitleothemotooany reliefoandotherefore,otheopresentopetitionoisoliableotoobeodismissed.

¶8Iohaveoheardotheolearnedocounseloforotheopartiesoatolength.

¶9Beforeoproceedingoinotheomatter,oitowouldobeoappositeoto examineotheorelevantoprovisionsoofolawoinothisoregard:-Sectiono29oofotheoInsecticidesoAct,o1968,oreadsoasounder:-

29.oOffencesoandopunishment.-(1)oWhoever,-

(a)oimports,omanufactures,osells,ostocksooroexhibitsoforosale orodistributesoanyoinsecticideodeemedotoobeomisbranded underosub-clauseo(i)oorosub-clauseo(iii)oorosub-clauseo(viii) ofoclauseo(k)oofosectiono3;oor

(b)oimportsooromanufacturesoanyoinsecticideowithoutoa certificateooforegistration;oor

(c)omanufactures,osells,ostocksooroexhibitsoforosaleoor distributesoanoinsecticideowithoutoaolicence;oor

(d)osellsoorodistributesoanoinsecticide,oinocontraventionoof sectiono27;oor

(e)ocausesoanoinsecticide,otheouseoofowhichohasobeen prohibitedounderosectiono27,otoobeousedobyoanyoworker;oor

(f)oobstructsoanoInsecticideoInspectoroinotheoexerciseoofohis powersoorodischargeoofohisodutiesounderothisoActoorothe rulesomadeothereunder,o[shallobeopunishable—

(i) o for the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both;

(ii)ofor the second and a subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees but which may extend to seventy-five thousand rupees, or with both.]

(2)oWhoever uses an insecticide in contravention of any provision of this act or any rule made thereunder shall be punishable with fine [which shall not be less than five hundred rupees but which may extend to five thousand rupees, or imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with both].

(3)oWhoever contravenes any of the other provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder or any condition of a certificate of registration or licence granted thereunder, shall be punishable—

(i)ofor the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [one year, or with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees but which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees, or with both],

(ii)ofor the second and a subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [two years, or with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both].

(4)oIf any person convicted of an offence under this Act commits a like offence afterwards it shall be lawful for the court before which the second or subsequent conviction takes place to cause the offender's name and place of residence, the offence and the penalty imposed to be published in such newspapers or in such other manner as CRM-M-31429-2022 -'-,e t!o#o47%oofot6eoC1&P&C&o1ea*"oa"o3#*e1$-

¶468Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of *imitation.-(1)oExcept as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.

(2)oThe period of limitation shall be-

(a)osix months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;

(b)oone year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;

(c) o three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

(3)For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.] ,e t!o#o479oofot6eoC1&P&C&o1ea*"oa"o3#*e1$-

¶469Commencement of the period of limitation.-(1)oThe period of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall commence,-

(a) o on the date of the offence; or

(b)owhere the commission of the offence was not 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; or

(c)owhere it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police officer making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier.

(2)oIn computing the said period, the day from which such period is to be computed shall be excluded. ,e t!o#o490oofot6eoC1&P&C&o1ea*"oa"o3#*e1$-

¶470Exclusion of time in certain cases.-(1)oIn computing the period of limitation, the time during which any person has been prosecuting with due diligence another prosecution, whether in a Court of first instance or in a Court of appeal or revision, against the offender, shall be excluded: Provided that no such exclusion shall be made unless the prosecution relates to the same facts' and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

(2)oWhere the institution of the prosecution in respect of an offence has been stayed by an injunction or order, then, in computing the period of limitation, the period of the continuance of the injunction or order, the day on which it was issued or made, and the day on which it was withdrawn, shall be excluded.

(3) o Where notice of prosecution for an offence has been given, or where, under any law for the time being in force, the previous consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority is required for the institution of any prosecution for an offence, then, in computing the period of limitation, the period of such notice or, as the case may be, the time required for obtaining such consent or sanction shall be excluded. Explanation.- In computing the time required for obtaining the consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority, the date on which the application was made for obtaining the consent or sanction and the date of receipt of the order of the Government or other authority shall both be excluded.

(4)oIn computing the period of limitation, the time during which the offender-

(a)ohas been absent from India or from any territory outside India which is under the administration of theJITESH LAL Central Government, or

(b) ohas avoided arrest by absconding or concealing himself, shall be excluded. ,e t!o#o493oofot6eoC1&P&C&o1ea*"oa"o3#*e1$-

¶473Extension of period of limitation in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice. ./. 5towo *doa*soo"eore*evantotooe2amineotheovario so! dgmentsoon theoiss eoofo*imitation. #heoHonC"*eoS premeo(o rtoinotheocaseoofoM/soCheminova IndiaoLtd.o1s pra3,ohe*doaso nder:- "10. In the present case, it is not in dispute, the complainant-2nd respondent has received the report of analysis on 14.03.2011 from the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana and the complaint was lodged on

25.03.2014 which is beyond a period of three years from

14.03.2011. The only submission of the learned counsel for the State is that further report from the Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory was received on 09.12.2011 which is the conclusive evidence of the facts, as such, the complaint is within the period of limitation. We are not convinced with such submission made by learned counsel for the State. When it is clear from the language of Sectiono469, Cr.PC that the period of limitation shall commence on the date of offence, there is no reason to seek computation of limitation only from the date of receipt of report of the Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Faridabad. As per the procedure prescribed under the Statute, i.e., Insecticide Act, 1968 and the rules made thereunder, the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, CRM-M-31429-2022 -%- Ludhiana was the competent authority to which the sample was sent on 17.02.2011, after drawing on

10.02.2011, and the report of analysis was received on

14.03.2011, as such the said date is said to be the crucial date for commencement of period of limitation. By virtue of the said report received on 14.03.2011 which states that the active ingredient of the sample was only to the extent

34.70% as against the labelled declaration of 40%, it is clear that it is the date of offence allegedly committed by the accused. Merely because a further request is made for sending the sample to the Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, as contemplated under Sectiono24(4) of the Act, which report was received on 09.12.2011, receipt of such analysis report on 09.12.2011 cannot be the basis for commencement of limitation. The report of analysis received from the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana on 14.03.2011 itself indicates misbranding, as stated in the complaint, thus, the period of limitation within the meaning of Sectiono469, Cr.PC commences from

14.03.2011 only. In that view of the matter, we are clearly of the view that the complaint filed is barred by limitation and allowing the proceedings to go on, on such complaint, which is ex facie barred by limitation is nothing but amounts to abuse of process of law. Though the learned counsel has also raised other grounds in support of quashing, as we are persuaded to accept his submission that complaint filed is barred by limitation, it is not necessary to deal with such other grounds raised." 1emphasisos pp*ied3 #hiso(o rtoinotheocaseoofoM/so'oabaoSeedoStoreo1s pra3,ohe*d aso nder:-

¶13In Sanjay Kumar's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the limitation to file complaint starts from the date of receipt of report of Public Analyst and not from the date of collection of sample by the Drug Inspector. Similarly, this Court in Om Parkash Aggarwal's case (supra), held that the limitation for filing a complaint under the Act is three years from the date of receipt of State Public Analyst Report and the complaint instituted after a period of three years is barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C., 1973.

¶14In the case in hand, the sample was drawn on

18.07.2012 and the analysis report was received on

22.08.2012, whereas the complaint was filed in the Court on 01.07.2016, as is apparent from Annexure P-1. Therefore, this Court finds that there appears to be substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners. Merely because the sample was sent for a second laboratory test on the request of accused is of no help for the complainant to delay the filing of the complaint. The petitioners cannot be held responsible for the delay, if any, as the same is solely at the behest of the complainant.

¶15It would be pertinent to mention here that though the petitioners could have availed the remedy of revision, but when from the face of it, this Court finds that the complaint was filed by the complainant beyond the period of limitation, in case the said complaint is allowed to be continued, it would be a futile exercise. Therefore, this Court while invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973 can entertain the present petition. In this regard, this Court finds support from Prabhu Chawla Versus State of Rajasthan and another 2016(4) RCR (Criminal) 270, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a petition for quashing the order of Magistrate is maintainable and the availability of remedy under Section 397 Cr.PC would not make a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC not maintainable.

¶16Thus, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present petitions are allowed and there being a statutory bar of limitation, this Court has no hesitation to quash the complaint dated 01.07.2016 (Annexure P-1) as well as the summoning order dated 04.08.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, SBS Nagar." 1emphasisos pp*ied3 5notheocaseoof oM/soInse.ti.idesoIndiaoLtd.o 1s pra3,ohe*doas nder:-

¶6Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds merit in the instant petition for the reasons to follow:-

¶1Undisputedly, the premises of M/s Sitara Lal Raghvir Parkash was raided by the complainant on 16.07.2011. Report qua misbranding of first sample was received on

25.07.2011 and second report from Faridabad authority was received on 01.02.2012. The impugned complaint was filed on 22.07.2015 i.e. after a period of 3 years, 5 months and 10 days. The period of limitation for filing the complaint under sub clause 2(c) of Sectiono468oCr.P.C, 1973 is three years. Therefore, after expiry of three years, the impugned complaint could not have been filed. Sanction letter (P-3) shows that the complainant applied for sanction on 19.08.2014 and the same was granted on

10.11.2014 i.e. within three months. In case, the period of three months is excluded, the impugned complaint filed on

22.07.2015 can still easily be declared being hopelessly time barred.

¶7In the rulings referred above, it is held that limitation to prosecute under the Act starts from the date of receipt of report of public analysts and not from the date of collection of sample and if, the complaint is filed beyond the period of limitation of three years, the same is not maintainable." 1emphasisos pp*ied3 5notheocaseoofoM/sotiimidarao1hetio1s pra3,ohe*doaso nder:-

¶10Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds adequate substance in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. A bare perusal of the facts of the case on record shows that the report of the Government Analyst had been received by the complainant on 26.06.2007. Even the sanction for prosecution, though applied too belatedly on 12.01.2010, was received on

17.09.2010 itself. Hence as per the mandate of Section 468(3) of Cr.P.C; and judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan(Supra) complaint in the present case could have been filed, at the best, within a period of 03 years from the date of receipt of report of the Government Analyst. However, the complaint has been filed after 08 years from the said date. Hence, the complaint in the present case is hopelessly time barred. ***** **** ****

13.Since taking of cognizance by the Court itself is prohibited; in case the complaint not filed within the prescribed period, therefore, the subsequent proceeding in the form of summoning, order also stands vitiated. This Court has already considered this aspect in the case of Sohan Singh and others(supra). The case of the present petitioner is further fortified by the fact that in the same complaint, the manufacturer, who is primarily responsible for manufacturing of spurious insecticide, already stands discharged on the basis of complaint being time barred only. Learned State counsel has not brought on record anything to show that the State has even challenged that order in favour of the manufacturer. In view of this, there is no legal justification, whatsoever, for continuing the proceedings against the petitioners; who happens to be only a retailer of the product; found to be spurious." 1Bmphasisos pp*ied3 ... Aocom"inedoreadingoofotheoaforementionedoprovisionsoofo*aw andotheo! dgmentsowo *domakeoitoapparentothatotheoperiodoofo*imitation "eginsofromotheodateoofotheoreceiptoofotheoreportoofotheoP "*icoAna*$st.o#he periodoofo*imitationoiso/4o$earsofromotheosaidodate.oHowever,otheotimeospent inoobtainingosanctionoisotoobeoexcluded.

¶12Comingobackotootheofactsoofotheopresentocase,oitowouldobe relevantotoonoteocertainodatesoandoeventsowhichohaveobeenoenumerated belowoinoaotabulatedoform:- Raid/shopovisit/sampleocollected 17.07.2012 -- Sentoforosampling 23.07.2012 -- st1 o sampleoofoInsecticideoQualityoControl 09.08.2012 AnnexureoP-3 Laboratory,oBathinda. nd2 o Sample o of o Central o Insecticides 15.10.2012 -- Laboratory,oNH-IV,oFaridabad. Sanction o sought o from o Chief o Agriculture 28.01.2014 -- Officero(CAO)oforoprosecution SanctionoforoprosecutionograntedobyoJDA 17.12.2016 AnnexureoP-4

(PP)oPunjab.

11.12.2017 AnnexureoP-1ComplaintoNo.COMA-41oofo2017odated

11.12.2017ounderoSectionso3(k)(I),o17,o18, 33oando29oofoInsecticidesoAct,o1968oread with o Ruleo 27(5)o of o Insecticides o Rules, 1971 Summoningoorder 09.02.2021 AnnexureoP-2

¶13Inotheoinstantocase,otheosampleowasotakenoono17.07.2012.oThe reportoofotheoPublicoAnalystowasomadeoavailableoisodatedo09.08.2012 (AnnexureoP-3).oTheosanctionoforoprosecutionowasoappliedoono28.01.2014 andowasograntedoono17.12.2016.oTheosanctionowasoreceivedobyotheoCAOoon

17.12.2016.oApproximatelyo02oyears,o10omonthsoando19odaysoelapsed betweenowhenosanctionowasosoughtoandowhenoitowasogranted.oTheoperiodoof limitationoexpiredoono13.08.2015.oHowever,otheocomplaintowasoinstituted onlyoono11.12.2017oafteroaogapoofo05oyears,o03omonthsoando28odaysofromothe dateoofotheoreceiptoofotheoreportoofotheoPublicoAnalyst.oTherefore,othe complaintocaseoNo.COMA-41oofo2017odatedo11.12.2017o(AnnexureoP-1)ois hopelesslyobarredobyotime.o

¶14Inoviewoofotheoaforementionedodiscussion,otheopresentopetition isoallowedoandotheocomplaintocaseoNo.COMA-41oofo2017odatedo11.12.2017 (AnnexureoP-1)ounderoSectionso3(k)(I),o17,o18,o33oando29oofoInsecticides Act,o1968oreadowithoRuleo27(5)oofoInsecticidesoRules,o1971,otheosummoning order o dated o 09.02.2021 o (Annexure o P-2) o along o with o all o subsequent proceedingsoarisingotherefromoareoherebyoquashed.

18.11.2025 (JASJIToSINGHoBEDI) Jitesh JUDGE Whetherospeaking/reasoned:- Yes/No WhetheroReportable:- Yes/No