KULDEEP SINGH AND ANR vs STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH INSECTICIDES INSPECTOR — CRM-M/25259/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010743022026

Filing Number

CRM-M/34481/2026

Filing Date

01-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/25259/2026

Registration Date

02-May-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Coram

Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Bench Type

Single

Category

38.1 - QUASHING PETITIONS I/O ( 152 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KULDEEP SINGH AND ANR

    Adv. SACHIN SHARMA

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

  3. 3.M/S KRISHI CROP SCIENCE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH INSECTICIDES INSPECTOR

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Mandeep PannuView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/25259/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana quashed criminal proceedings against Kuldeep Singh (godown incharge) and M/s Krishi Crop Science (marketing company) in an insecticide misbranding case. The court held that mere involvement in the marketing chain, without specific allegations of knowledge, consent, tampering, or negligence, does not attract criminal liability. Since the defective insecticide sample was drawn from the dealer's premises (not the petitioners') and was supplied in sealed packing by the manufacturer, liability primarily rests with the manufacturer and its appointed quality control officer under Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/25259/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/25259/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana quashed criminal proceedings against Kuldeep Singh (godown incharge) and M/s Krishi Crop Science (marketing company) in an insecticide misbranding case. The court held that mere involvement in the marketing chain, without specific allegations of knowledge, consent, tampering, or negligence, does not attract criminal liability. Since the defective insecticide sample was drawn from the dealer's premises (not the petitioners') and was supplied in sealed packing by the manufacturer, liability primarily rests with the manufacturer and its appointed quality control officer under Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case