JUDGMENT Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. - The question which arises for consideration in the instant petition is as to whether a marketing agency/licensed dealer can be held responsible under the Insecticides Act, 1968, for the contents of the samples when it is not disputed that the seal of the sample was intact at the time of sampling? 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.COMA-259 of 2018 (wrongly mentioned as filing No.COMA/1016/2018 in the head note of the petition), File No.178 dated 25.05.2018 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 3k(i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rule 27 (5) of Insecticide Rules, 1971 titled as 'Punjab State Versus M/s Mohinder Kumar Heshane Kumar and Others' pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo as well as the subsequent proceedings including the order of summoning dated 25.05.2018 (Annexure P-4) being an abuse of the process of law and barred by limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') and hit by Section 30(3) of The Insecticides Act, 1968. FACTS: 3. The brief facts of the case as they emanate from the perusal of the petition are to the effect that the petitioner no.1 is the sole proprietorship firm of petitioner No.2 and the petitioners are engaged in the business of retail sale of various kinds of insecticides etc. used for common agricultural purposes. It is contended that on 24.09.2009, the respondent/complainant conducted a surprise inspection at the business premises of the petitioners and during the said inspection no irregularity was found with regard to the records of the petitioners or their licence to sell the insecticides. It is pointed out that the petitioners were holding a valid licence for selling insecticides which was valid till 31.12.2009. 4. It is alleged that the Insecticide Inspector tried to join the independent witnesses but nobody expressed his willingness, whereafter the officer found 4 X 1 litre Endosulfan, details of which are extracted as herein below: 4. I found 4 X 1 Litre Endosulfan 35% E.C. Bearing Batch No.060APS21, Date of manufacture April 2009 and Expiry March 2011 which was in one litre packing supplied by M/s Anu Products Ltd. Ludhiana and was displayed for sale. I found 4 X 1 Litre Endosulfan 35% E.C. Bearing Batch No.060APS21, Date of manufacture April 2009 and Expiry March 2011 which was in one litre packing supplied by M/s Anu Products Ltd. Ludhiana and was displayed for sale. Out of total stock of medicine of 4 X 1 Litre, I selected one litre pack for sample and purchased 750 ml. Endosulfan 35% EC vide Bill No.26/58 dated 24.09.2009 (Copy Enclosed). Remaining medicines was returned to the shopkeeper after sealing. (Annexure C-5) 5. That before taking sample, consent was obtained from Shri Mohinder Kumar son of Uttam Chand, M/s Mohinder Kumar Heshane Kumar, Raman Mandi, Form XX (4) and XXI (6) were prepared and Shri Mohinder Kumar son of Uttam Chand, M/s Mohinder Kumar Heshane Kumar, Raman Mandi signed form XX and Shri Surjit Singh, Agriculture Sub Inspector also signed form XX as witness. One form No.XX handed over to Shri Mohinder Kumar. (Annexure C-6 and C-7) ****** 8. That the test report from Senior Analyst, Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana was received in the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda vide forward Letter No.TA/297 date 19.10.2009. (Copy enclosed). (Annexure P-10). Sample was declared misbranded because it was not found proper as per the ISI specifications and concentration was 28.23% instead of 35% EC (Copy enclosed). **** 10. That as per the provisions of Insecticides Act, on the request of dealer (Original enclosed Annexure C-13) reference sample was sent for retesting to the Central Insecticide Lab, Faridabad vide Letter No.8016 dated 17.12.2009 of Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda through Shri Jagjit Singh Beldar, Bathinda. (Annexure C-14). Which was declared misbranded by Central Insecticide Lab, Faridabad because in this, concentration was found 28.57% EC instead of 35% EC which does not comply with the ISI specifications. (Copy enclosed) (Annexure C-15). 11. That due to the violation of provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 by M/s Mohinder Kumar Heshane Kumar, Near Gandhi Chowk, Raman Mandi through Shri Mohinder Kumar son of Shri Uttam Chand, owner M/s Mohinder Kumar Heshane Kumar, Near Gandhi Chowk, Raman Mandi by keeping and selling misbranded medicine, license of the firm was cancelled by Chief Agriculture officer (Licensing Authority), Bathinda vide his letter No.1924 dated 19.03.2010. (Original enclosed). (Annexure C-16). (Original enclosed). (Annexure C-16). Shri Mohinder Kumar son of Shri Uttam Chand, owner M/s Mohinder Kumar Heshane Kumar, Near Gandhi Chowk, Raman Mandi filed an appeal for restoration of the license before appellate authority (Joint Director PP, Chandigarh) which was accepted by the appellate authority. (Annexure C-17)." 5. Alongwith the complaint, an application under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for extension of the period of limitation was also filed. It is alleged that without taking any decision on the said application regarding condonation of delay, the order of summoning dated 25.05.2018 was passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo. 6. Aggrieved thereof instant petition has been filed. ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONERS: 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the institution of the complaint and subsequent passing of summoning order against the petitioners are liable to be quashed for the reasons that as per the case set up by the complainant themselves in the complaint, the petitioners are merely dealers of the insecticides and are not the manufacturer thereof. He thus submits that the only obligation expected of the dealer is to keep the product stored in accordance with the provisions contained in the Insecticide Act and the rules framed thereunder, but there is no allegation that the sealed and packed insecticides were not stored by the petitioners as per the provisions contained in the Insecticide Act and the rules framed thereunder. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the samples were drawn from the sealed packs and that even if the composition thereof is not in accordance with the composition prescribed under the Insecticide Act or the rules framed thereunder, the dealer still cannot be held responsible for the quality of the product. The said responsibility is to be discharged either by the Manufacturer or by the person who is responsible at the hands of manufacturer and the declaration so furnished as per the rules. He has further drawn attention to the relevant provisions of the Insecticides Act under which the petitioners are being sought to be prosecuted and the same read thus:- Section 3 (k)(i) 'Misbranded"- an insecticide shall be deemed to be misbranded- i. if its label contains any statement, design or graphic representation relating thereto which is false or misleading in any material particular, or if its package is otherwise deceptive in respect of its contents; or ii. if it is an imitation of, or is sold under the name of, another insecticide; or iii. if its label does not contain a warning or caution which may be necessary and sufficient, if complied with to prevent risk to human beings or animals; or iv. if any word, statement or other information required by or under this Act to appear on the label is not displayed thereon in such conspicuous manner as the other words, statements, designs or graphic matter have been displayed on the label and in such terms as to render it likely to be read and understood by any ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use; or v . if it is not packed or labelled as required by or under this Act; or vi . if it is not registered in the manner required by or under this Act; or vii .if the label contains any reference to registration other than the registration number; or viii .if the insecticide has a toxicity which is higher than the level prescribed or is mixed or packed with any substance so as to alter its nature or quality or contains any substance which is not included in the registration; Section 17 Prohibition of import and manufacture of certain insecticides:- (1) No person shall, himself or by any person on his behalf, import or manufacture- (a) any misbranded insecticide; (b) any insecticide the sale, distribution or use of which is for the time being prohibited under section 27; (c) any insecticide except in accordance with the conditions on which it was registered; (d) any insecticide in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder: Provided that any person who has applied for registration of an insecticide 14 [under any of the provisos] to sub-section (1) of section 9 may continue to import or manufacture any such insecticide and such insecticide shall not be deemed to be a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of sub-clause (vi) or subclause (vii) or sub-clause (viii) of clause (k) of section 3, until he has been informed by the Registration Committee of its decision to refuse to register the said insecticide. (2) No person shall, himself or by any person on his behalf, manufacture any insecticide except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose under this Act. (2) No person shall, himself or by any person on his behalf, manufacture any insecticide except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose under this Act. Section 18 Prohibition of sale, etc., of certain insecticides.- No person shall, himself or by any person on his behalf, sell, stock or exhibit for sale, distribute, 15 [transport, use, or cause to be used] by any worker- (a) any insecticide which is not registered under this Act; (b) any insecticide, the sale, distribution or use of which is for the time being prohibited under section 27; (c ) any insecticide in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder. (2) No person shall, himself or by any person on his behalf, sell stock or exhibit for sale or distribute 16 [or use for commercial pest control operations] any insecticide except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose under this Act. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section an insecticide in respect of which any person has applied for a certificate of registration 17 [under any of the provisos] to sub-section (1) of section 9, shall be deemed to be registered till the date on which the refusal to register such insecticide is notified in the Official Gazette. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section an insecticide in respect of which any person has applied for a certificate of registration 17 [under any of the provisos] to sub-section (1) of section 9, shall be deemed to be registered till the date on which the refusal to register such insecticide is notified in the Official Gazette. Section 29 Offences and punishment.- (1) Whoever,- (a) imports, manufactures, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes any insecticide deemed to be misbranded under sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (iii) or sub-clause (viii) of clause (k) of section 3; or (b) imports or manufactures any insecticide without a certificate of registration; or (c) manufactures, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes an insecticide without a licence; or (d) sells or distributes an insecticide, in contravention of section 27; or (e) causes an insecticide, the use of which has been prohibited under section 27, to be used by any worker; or (f) obstructs an Insecticide Inspector in the exercise of his powers or discharge of his duties under this Act or the rules made thereunder, 25 [shall be punishable- (i) 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) for 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) Whoever uses an insecticide in contravention of any provision of this act or any rule made thereunder shall be punishable with fine 26 [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) Whoever 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) for the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3[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) for the second and a subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 4 [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. If 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 the court may direct. Section 33 Offences by companies.- (1) Whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of, the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment under this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the company, such Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.-For the purpose of this section,- (a) 'company' means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) 'director', in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm. 8. By making a reference to the aforesaid provisions, it is submitted that as per the affirmative case of the prosecution the samples in question were drawn from a packed material and the manufacturer of the said material is M/s Anu Products Limited, Sambha whereas, the petitioners are the dealers. As a Dealer, they cannot be held responsible for the alleged deficiency in the active ingredients of a sample or be held accountable for a case of misbranding. There is no allegation that any interpolation or interjection had been carried out in the packet of insecticide at the hands of such a dealer. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in the matter of M/sZimidara KhetiVs.StateofPunjab reported as (2019) 1RCR (Criminal) 288. 9. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the inspection of the premises of the petitioners was conducted in the year 2009 and that the complaint in question has been instituted in the year 2018 i.e. after a lapse of 9 years, and that too, without any valid explanation for such inordinate delay in filing of the said complaint. He contends that the maximum sentence prescribed for the alleged offence for a first-time offender (as in the present case) is two years. He further contends that as per Section 468 (2) of the Cr.P.C., the period of limitation for taking cognizance of such offence is three years from the commission of offence. Hence, the cognizance of the impugned complaint could not have been taken by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo and as such, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo has erred in passing no order on the application seeking extension of time under Section 473 of the Cr.P.C. and proceeding directly to issue summons against the petitioners, whereas no such orders could have been passed against the petitioners on account of the proceedings being barred by limitation. It is thus argued that the Court should have first satisfied itself with respect to the existence of sufficient grounds for invoking the provisions of Section 473 of the Cr.P.C. to condone the delay. It is thus argued that the Court should have first satisfied itself with respect to the existence of sufficient grounds for invoking the provisions of Section 473 of the Cr.P.C. to condone the delay. The order of summoning could have been passed only after that. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn attention of the Court to the averments contained in the petition in paragraph no.4, wherein it is specifically pleaded that the petitioners were not the manufacturers and were merely dealers of the said product, that was stored properly without any alteration or tampering with the same. No such allegations have been asserted in the impugned complaint against the petitioners. He has also referred to the response filed by the respondents to contend that the averments made by the petitioners have not been controverted and have rather been admitted by the respondent in the said response. 11. It is further argued by learned Senior counsel that the petitioners are not responsible for or in-charge of the conduct of business of the manufacturing company and are not responsible to maintain the product quality at the behest of the manufacturer, or the activity undertaken by the said manufacturer, and hence, without prejudice to the substantive arguments raised, the institution of the complaint and the subsequent proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be set aside on the said score as well. ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT-STATE: 12. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has placed reliance on the application moved by the respondent-complainant for the purposes of seeking extension of time under Section 473 of the Cr.P.C. to contend that the active ingredients of the product were not in accordance with the specifications prescribed under the Insecticide Act, 1968 or the Rules framed thereunder. Furthermore, the learned State counsel has reiterated the allegations levelled in the complaint and as contained in the reply filed by way of affidavit of Surinder Kumar, Insecticide Inspector, Raman Mandi, District Bathinda, now ADO Lambi. It is vehemently argued that it is an established case of misbranding and that the active ingredients were much less than the contents as described on the label. It is also argued that the culpability of the petitioners shall be determined at the stage of trial and that it would not be a fit case for invocation of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 13. It is also argued that the culpability of the petitioners shall be determined at the stage of trial and that it would not be a fit case for invocation of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents appended alongwith the petition as well as judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions. CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS: LEGAL POSITION 14. It would be pertinent to make a reference to the relevant judicial pronouncements to appreciate the obligation and responsibility of a dealer and also his liability to be criminally prosecuted in the event that the sample in question is drawn out of a sealed container, that was intact at the time of sampling, is found to be misbranded after analysis. This court in the matter of Lochen Kheti Sewa Centre Vs. State of Punjab, 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 22 observed as under:- 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has very fairly stated that the petitioner is not the manufacturer. The sample was drawn from sealed packets and there is no material to indicate that it was properly stored. Under the circumstances the petitioner cannot be held liable for misbranding of the insecticide. Only the manufacturer, who is being proceeded against would be responsible. 15. Further, in the matter of DeepakSharma Vs.State ofPunjab 2008 (2), RCR (Criminal) 24, this court observed as under:- 2. The sample seized, on analysis, was found to be misbranded. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is that a seller cannot be prosecuted. In support thereof, reliance is placed upon M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v. Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur and another, 1990 (supp) Supreme Court Cases 11 and M/s Vimal and Co. Grain Market, Mullanpur v. State of Punjab, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 56. The former judicial pronouncement was rendered by the Apex Court, while the latter was rendered by this Court. Both these judicial pronouncements are fully supportive of the advocate point of view. 16. Furthermore, this Court in the matter of Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 211 held as under:- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a licensee under Insecticide Act, 1968 to deal with various kinds of insecticides and pesticides of registered and approved manufacturers. 16. Furthermore, this Court in the matter of Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 211 held as under:- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a licensee under Insecticide Act, 1968 to deal with various kinds of insecticides and pesticides of registered and approved manufacturers. It has further been clarified that the petitioner sells only sealed and packed insecticides/pesticides. A sample of insecticide that has been manufactured by a company approved by Government of Punjab was drawn on 25.05.2001. The sample was drawn from originally sealed and packed container. In above regards, learned counsel has referred to para No.3 of the petition which is extracted hereunder: '3. That as per complainant version on 25.05.2001, he drew a sample of one insecticide i.e. Metalyax 8% + Mancozeb 64% EC bearing Batch No.KG-09, Mfg. November, 2000 and Expiry October, 2002 out of two 500 gms. Originally sealed and packed containers lying properly from the shop premises of the petitioner-firm as manufactured by M/s. Fungicide India Ltd. Jammu. The said manufacturing company i.e. M/s Fungicide Ltd. Jammu is the registered and authorised manufacturing company by Govt. of Punjab to sell its products in the State of Punjab' 3. Learned counsel states that it is admitted case of the respondents that sample was drawn from sealed and packed container. In this regard, learned counsel has referred to Para No.3 of the reply on merits which reads as under:- 3. That the contents of para No.3 of the petition are matter of record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has a licence to sell insecticides and pesticides manufactured by companies approved by Government of India and Government of Punjab. It is further not in dispute that the sample that has been drawn has been manufactured by approved manufacturer. There is no material available on the file to indicate that the insecticide was stored in violation of rules. It is also the admitted position that sample was drawn from originally sealed and packed containers. 6. In view of the above, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the petitioner who is merely selling the insecticide had no occasion to tamper with the contents of the container/insecticide. 7. It is also the admitted position that sample was drawn from originally sealed and packed containers. 6. In view of the above, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the petitioner who is merely selling the insecticide had no occasion to tamper with the contents of the container/insecticide. 7. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would he abuse of process of law and abuse of process of Court. The petitioners being only involved in sale of insecticide, cannot be held responsible for the contents of the container from which the sample has been drawn. 17. This Court has further in the matter of Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 202 held as under:- 7.It is evident from above that sample was taken from original packing. 8.Affidavit dated 06.12.2010 of S Navtej Singh, Insecticide Inspector, District Kapurthala has been filed. Para 1 of the said affidavit reads under:- '1. Original packing as per Form XX refers to the stock in possession of accused, which at the time of sampling is in a sealed condition which is purported to be same as packed, lebelled and sealed by the manufacturer. Although, it is stated in the subsequent paragraph that it is yet to be determined whether the insecticide in question (Monocrotophos 36% SL of one liter each) was in original sealed packing or as to whether the sealed packing was tampered with or not, the allegation in the complaint and Form No. XX speaks for themselves. There is no doubt left that the sample was drawn from the originally sealed and packed containers weighing one liter and packed by the registered and authorized manufacturing company. There is no allegation that in the said complaint that the said seal was tampered with or the originally packing was tampered with. There is no allegation that the said sample was not stored in the same state. (....) 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed. There is no allegation that in the said complaint that the said seal was tampered with or the originally packing was tampered with. There is no allegation that the said sample was not stored in the same state. (....) 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed. Complaint No. 79 dated 02.03.2007 under sections 3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 read with rules 27 (5) of the Insecticides Rules 1971 titled as State v M/s Punjab Khad Store and others pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala and summoning order and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners are hereby quashed. 18. Further, it is pertinent to make a reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Cheminova India Limited & Anr Vs. State of Punjab & Ors decided on 04.08.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.750 of 2021, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that proceedings under the Insecticides Act cannot be instituted against all and sundry persons of the company and that as per mandate of Section 33 of the Act, it is clear that responsible persons of the company alone can be deemed to be prosecuted and liable to be proceeded against. The relevant extracts are stated as under:- '9. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. In view of the specific provision in the Act dealing with the offences by companies, which fixes the responsibility SLP(Crl.) No. 4144 of 2020 and the responsible person of the Company for conduct of its business, by making bald and vague allegations, 2nd Appellant - Managing Director cannot be prosecuted on vague allegation that he being the Managing Director of the 1st Appellant - Company, is overall responsible person for the conduct of the business of the Company and of quality control, etc. In the instant case, the Company has passed a resolution, fixing responsibility of one of the Managers namely Mr. Madhukar R. Gite by way of a resolution and the same was furnished to the respondents by the 2nd Appellant in shape of an undertaking on 22.01.2013. In the instant case, the Company has passed a resolution, fixing responsibility of one of the Managers namely Mr. Madhukar R. Gite by way of a resolution and the same was furnished to the respondents by the 2nd Appellant in shape of an undertaking on 22.01.2013. When furnishing of such undertaking fixing the responsibility of the quality control of the products is not in dispute, there is no reason or justification for prosecuting the 2nd Appellant - Managing Director, on the vague and spacious plea that he was the Managing Director of the Company at the relevant time. A reading of Section 33 of the Act also makes it clear that only responsible person of the Company, as well as the Company alone shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against. Though, the Managing Director is overall incharge of the affairs of the company, whether such officer is to be prosecuted or not, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the relevant provisions of law. Having regard to specific provision under Section 33 of the Act, and the undertaking filed in the present case, respondent cannot prosecute the 2nd Appellant herein. Thus, we find force in the contention of Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel, that allowing the prosecution against 2nd Appellant -Managing Director is nothing but, abuse of the process of law. At the same time, we do not find any ground at this stage to quash the proceedings against the 1st Appellant - Company." DISCUSSION: 19. It is evident from the perusal of the petition as well as documents appended alongwith the same and the uncontroverted assertion of the petitioners that they were only the dealers of the insecticides in question. The memo of parties of the impugned complaint itself describes the petitioners as 'dealers' and not 'manufacturers' of the insecticides. Besides, a specific averment to the said effect has also been made in paragraph no.2 of the complaint wherein the respondent-State has acknowledged and admitted that 'the petitioners are engaged in the business of sale and keeping for sale of insecticides and pesticides'. The said fact has also been repeated in the reply filed by way of affidavit of Surinder Kumar, Insecticide Inspector, Raman Mandi, District Bathinda on behalf of respondent-State. The relevant extract is reproduced herein below: '1. The said fact has also been repeated in the reply filed by way of affidavit of Surinder Kumar, Insecticide Inspector, Raman Mandi, District Bathinda on behalf of respondent-State. The relevant extract is reproduced herein below: '1. That the petitioner herein is a Sole Proprietorship and doing the business of retail sale of insecticides etc. On 24.9.2009, the Inspector conducting a surprise checking and sample of Endosulphan 35% EC, manufactured by M/s Anu Products Ltd. Sambha (Jammu and Kashmir) was taken after taking the signatures of the petitioner and sample was sealed." 20. Furthermore, there is no averment in the complaint that the petitioners were in any manner responsible for the quality of the product or for ensuring the active ingredients thereof. It is also not alleged by the respondent-State that the product in question was not being stored or kept in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 or the Rules framed thereunder. Responsibility of the labelled ingredients and the composition thereof is not an obligation to be discharged by the petitioners. 21. It is evident from a perusal of the petition as well as documents appended along with the same that the undisputed case of the respondentState is that the petitioners were dealers of the insecticides. It has been repeatedly so affirmed by the respondent in various paragraphs of the complaint instituted through Insecticide Inspector and already extracted above. It is also not a subject matter of dispute that the sample was drawn from a sealed packet and it is nowhere alleged that the sample had not been stored in accordance with the provisions contained under the Insecticides Act and Rules framed thereunder. There is also no allegation that the petitioners were responsible for the quality of the product as well as for ensuring the labelled ingredients of the same. The petitioners are not nominated as the authorized/responsible officers in terms of Section 33 of the Insecticides Act. The statutory mandate intends to penalize a person who has committed an offence. It does not intend to prosecute the people who are merely dealing with the said product and for which they have no control as regards its quality and content. The petitioners cannot be held liable and penalized for misbranding of a product where they were not involved in the manufacturing process at all merely for having traded in the same. Section 3 (k)(i) defines 'misbranding'. The petitioners cannot be held liable and penalized for misbranding of a product where they were not involved in the manufacturing process at all merely for having traded in the same. Section 3 (k)(i) defines 'misbranding'. The same relates to the label of products and its contents. It is not the case that any of the activities referred to under section 3 (k) attracting misbranding was undertaken by the petitioners. Further, Section 17 of the Act is also not attracted against the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners are neither the importer of the misbranded insecticides, nor manufacturer thereof. Further, the ingredients of Section 18 of the Act are also not satisfied and there is no allegation that the petitioners had indulged in the sale of the insecticides, which was either not registered under the Act or was prohibited under Section 27. Similarly, Section 29 also would not be applicable against the petitioners inasmuch as the same contemplates punishment for offences as stated above. Once the necessary ingredients of the said Sections are not satisfied against the petitioners, they cannot be penalized for the same. CONCLUSION: 20. Having noticed the undisputed facts, the position of law as well as statutory provisions under which the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted, I find myself in agreement with the precedent judgments of this Court referred to in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment. Considering the same along with undisputed fact, the instant petition is allowed and the complaint No.COMA-259 of 2018 (wrongly mentioned as filing No.COMA/1016/2018 in the head note of the petition), File No.178 dated 25.05.2018 (Annexure P-2) titled as 'Punjab State Versus M/s Mohinder Kumar Heshane Kumar and others' pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo for offences under Sections 3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Section 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 as well as the subsequent proceedings including the order of summoning dated 25.05.2018 (Annexure P-4) are accordingly quashed qua the petitioners only. Petition is allowed, accordingly.