Crl. Misc. No. M-12501 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-12501 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: August 25, 2011 M/s. Dashmesh Kheti Store and others .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Arun Chandra, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of complaint dated 03.01.2007 under Sections 3 (k) (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short 'The Act') read with Rule 27 (5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 (for short 'The Rules') entitled State vs. Dashmesh Kethi Store and others., pending in the Court of JMIC, Moga. The petition further prays for quashing of order of summoning dated 03.01.2007 Annexure P-2. Short contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner no. 1 is a dealer in insecticides. Petitioner no. 2 is proprietor of petitioner no. 1. Petitioner no. 3 is the distributor of insecticides that has supplied insecticides to petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 4 is the proprietor of petitioner no. 3. It has been argued that sample of insecticide was taken from the premises of petitioner no. 1 on 26.07.2005 from a sealed container. Learned Crl. Misc. No. M-12501 of 2010 2 counsel for the petitioners contends that it is the admitted case that none of the petitioners is manufacturer of the insecticide. There is no evidence to indicate that the container was not stored properly so as to invite any punitive action under the Act and the Rules. Learned counsel for the respondent-State admits that the petitioners are not the manufacturers of the insecticide. It is further the admitted case that sample of insecticide was taken from a sealed container. There is no evidence to indicate that the petitioners did not store the insecticide as required by Rules. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners cannot be held liable for the actions of the manufacturer. Sample was taken from a sealed container. The petitioners had no occasion to know as to the adulteration in the insecticide because sample of insecticide was taken from a sealed container. In such circumstances, continuance of proceedings shall only result in harassment of the petitioners. The petitioners cannot possibly be convicted for the offence, in view of the admitted position. Further continuance of proceedings shall be an abuse of process of Court and process of Law. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Complaint dated 03.01.2007 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 entitled State vs. Dashmesh Kethi Store and ors., pending in the Court of JMIC, Moga and order of summoning Annexure P-2 qua the petitioners are hereby quashed. 25.08.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-12501 of 2010 3