Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Insecticides Act Proceedings Against Marketing Company; Holds No Vicarious Liability for Misbranding of Sealed Products
Case Name: M/s Suminova Agri Science and Others v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 2 January 2026
Citation: CRM-M-6231 of 2020
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal complaint, summoning order, and all consequential proceedings against the petitioners. The Court held that a marketing or distributing company cannot be held criminally liable for misbranding of an insecticide when the sample is drawn from an original sealed container and there is no allegation or material showing involvement in manufacturing, labeling, or quality control. The Court further held that the summoning order was non-speaking and passed without application of mind, rendering it legally unsustainable.
Summary: The petitioners, including a marketing company and its office bearers, sought quashing of a criminal complaint arising from sampling of an insecticide product drawn on 22 May 2017 from a dealer’s premises. The insecticide, manufactured by another company and marketed by the petitioners, was declared misbranded by both the State Insecticide Testing Laboratory and subsequently by the Central Insecticide Laboratory. Based on these reports, a complaint was filed under various provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968, and summons were issued to all accused.
The petitioners contended that they were neither manufacturers nor responsible for labeling or formulation of the product and had merely marketed the insecticide in the same sealed condition in which it was received from the manufacturer. It was further contended that there was a delay of four days in sending the sample to the State Laboratory in violation of Section 22(6) of the Act and that the summoning order was mechanical and non-speaking.
The State opposed the petition, arguing that marketing companies and their office bearers are equally liable for sale of misbranded insecticides and that the delay in dispatch of the sample was inconsequential, particularly when the Central Laboratory had also confirmed misbranding.
The High Court examined the statutory scheme and held that liability under the Insecticides Act cannot be fastened on a dealer or marketing company when the product is sold in sealed condition and there is no evidence of knowledge or control over its quality or labeling. Relying on Supreme Court precedent and consistent decisions of the High Court, the Court held that vicarious liability under Section 33 of the Act arises only when the accused is shown to be an authorised or responsible person connected with manufacturing or quality assurance.
The Court further held that the delay in sending the first sample to the State Laboratory lost significance once the Central Insecticide Laboratory also found the sample to be misbranded. However, the summoning order was found to be legally defective as it failed to record even prima facie reasons and reflected total non-application of mind by the Magistrate.
Decision: The petition was allowed. The complaint along with the summoning order of the same date, and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.