-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
In a landmark decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a criminal complaint under the Insecticides Act, 1968, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory limitation period for prosecutions and clarifying the non-liability of dealers and marketers in cases of misbranding. The decision, pronounced by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta on November 16, underscores the need for precision and timeliness in legal procedures.
The bench noted, “Complaint in question being time barred, is not maintainable,” highlighting the stringent requirements of the limitation period in criminal prosecutions. This statement provides a critical reminder of the legal system’s commitment to timely justice.
The case involved two petitions challenging a complaint for alleged offenses under the Insecticides Act, with the primary contention being the exceeding of the three-year limitation period set by Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court observed that even after excluding the time taken for obtaining government sanction, the complaint was filed beyond the permissible limitation period.
In an important observation concerning liability under the Act, the court stated, “Petitioners being the dealer / marketer only cannot be concerned with the quality of the material and so, they cannot be liable for misbranding the same.” This clarification brings significant relief to dealers and marketers who are often caught in the crossfire of legal battles concerning product misbranding.
The decision has been widely welcomed by legal experts and stakeholders in the agricultural sector. It not only reinforces the sanctity of procedural laws but also provides clarity on the roles and responsibilities of various parties involved in the marketing and sale of insecticides.
Date of Decision: November 16, 2023
Rakesh Kumar and another VS State of Punjab
