The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside criminal proceedings against a pesticide marketing company and its office bearers, holding that sellers cannot be prosecuted for misbranding when the product was sold in a sealed condition. The court found that continuing the case would amount to misuse of criminal law.
The ruling came in a petition seeking quashing of a complaint under the Insecticides Act, 1968, pending before a Ludhiana court.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rejects Curative Pleas in Land Acquisition Case, Says No Grounds Within Limited Review Scope
Background of the Case
The case arose from a 2017 inspection carried out by an Insecticide Inspector at a dealer’s shop in Khanna, Ludhiana district. During the visit, a sample of Fipronil 0.3% GR insecticide was collected from sealed packaging.
The product was manufactured by a Faridkot-based company and marketed by M/s Suminova Agri Science. After laboratory testing, the insecticide was declared “misbranded.” Based on this, a criminal complaint was filed in 2019 against the dealer, the marketing company, and its office bearers.
The trial court issued summons the same day the complaint was filed, prompting the marketing firm and its officials to approach the High Court for relief.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rejects Goregaon Pearl Society's Curative Pleas, Ends Long-Running Housing Dispute
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the marketing company had no role in manufacturing, labeling, or packaging of the insecticide. The product, it was stressed, was sold exactly as received from the manufacturer in original sealed packs.
It was also pointed out that there was no allegation suggesting that the petitioners had knowledge of any defect or misbranding. The defence further challenged the summoning order, calling it mechanical and non-speaking, passed without examining whether a prima facie case existed.
The State of Punjab opposed the plea, asserting that marketing companies cannot escape responsibility merely by claiming they are not manufacturers. The prosecution maintained that the insecticide was found misbranded in both state and central laboratory tests, and a short delay in sending the sample for analysis did not vitiate the proceedings.
Read also:- Supreme Court Mandates Timelines for Oral Arguments, Issues SOP to Streamline Hearings and Cut Delays
Court’s Observation
After hearing both sides, the High Court framed the central question: Can a marketing or distributing firm be criminally liable for misbranding when the product was sold in sealed condition?
Answering this in the negative, the court relied on settled law that dealers and marketers cannot be held responsible unless there is material showing their involvement or knowledge.
“The liability for misbranding cannot be fastened upon a dealer when the product is sold in a sealed container,” the bench observed, noting that the Insecticides Act does not intend to punish entities that have no control over product composition or labeling.
The court also found fault with the trial court’s summoning order, observing that it failed to record reasons or reflect any application of mind. The High Court reiterated that even at the summoning stage, courts are required to pass reasoned orders.
Decision
Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the criminal complaint, the summoning order, and all consequential proceedings against the marketing company and its office bearers. The court held that continuing the prosecution would serve no legal purpose when the essential ingredients of liability were missing.
Case Title: M/s Suminova Agri Science & Ors vs State of Punjab
Case No.: CRM-M-6231 of 2020
Case Type: Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC
Decision Date: 02 January 2026
