D.N.Chaturvedi vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

This judgment will also dispose of Criminal Misc No. 3033M of 1993, Sat Pal v. State of Punjab. Both these petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint Annexure P/1 and consequent proceedings under Section 3k(i), 17, 18 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (the Act for short) read with Rule 10 of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 and under Section 420, Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar.

The brief resume of the facts necessary for the disposal of these petitions is that on 3.6.1991 Baldev Singh, Insecticide Inspector, inspected the premises of M/s Gandhi Sales Corporation in the presence of Malkiat Singh and Arjan Singh and took a sample of butachlor 50% EC which was manufactured by M/s Sumex Chemicals Private Limited. For this purpose one tin containing 5 litres of butachlor 50% EC of batch No 34 was taken and after shaking the tin properly, butachlor insecticide was put in three glass bottles weighing 300 militres each. The bottles were duly sealed after the same were put in polythene bags and one packet of sealed sample was handed over to Shri Satpal owner of M/s Gandhi Sales Corporation, Amritsar. One sample was sent to the Analyst for Analysis and the third packet was kept for reference. On analysis the analyst opined that the sample was misbranded since it contained only 45.2% EC W/W of butachlor as against the guaranteed percentage of 50% as lebelled on the tin. The sample was, therefore, not in conformity with ISI specifications with respect to its percentage of active ingredients and in this way the dealer and manufacturer had committed an offence by selling, stocking and exhibiting for sale misbranded insecticide under the licence granted to them.

The petitioners alleged that before launching any prosecution it was mandatory to obtain sanction under Section 31 of the Act but the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind before granting sanction to launch prosecution against the petitioners and gave the sanction on a cyclostyled proforma. No details of the facts regarding the sample being misbranded were given. Even the names of the petitioners against whom the complaint was filed were not mentioned in the sanction. It was further alleged that the dealer firm was not a partnership firm and no sanction was given against Satpal, so complaint against him was not maintainable.

In the return filed by the respondents it was maintained that sanction granted by the sanctioning authority was proper and legal and it was accorded after satisfaction from the perusal of the relevant record placed before him. Sat Pal was the sole proprietor of M/s. Gandhi Sales Corporation, Amritsar. So even though name of the proprietor was not mentioned in the sanction order, the proprietor was liable and sanction was proper.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the sanction Annexure P/2 which was on a cyclostyled form and wherein only the Sections for which the dealer and the manufacturer of the insecticide were to be tried were filled in besides the particulars of the two firms. It was urged that name of none of the petitioners was mentioned in the sanction. The complaint had been filed against M/s. Gandhi Sales Corporation through Satpal and against M/s Sumex Chemicals Private Limited through D.N. Chaturvedi, Chairman, A.K. Chaturvedi, Marketing Manager, M.S. Desai, and P.M. Desai Experts. It was not mentioned as to how all these persons were being prosecuted when there was no sanction granted for their prosecution by any competent authority. It was nowhere mentioned in the sanction that M/s Gandhi Sales Corporation was to be sued through Satpal, who was the sole proprietor. Under Section 31 of the Act no prosecution for an offences under the Act shall be instituted except by with the written consent of the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government. The contention of the learned counsel that the sanction Annexure P/2 is not proper is quite tenable. Vide Annexure P/2 permission was granted to launch prosecution against M/s Gandhi Sales Corporation, Chitra Talkies Road, Amritsar, dealer and M/s Sumex Chemicals Limited. SHO No. 6, District Vaslao, Gujrat Manufacturers. No sanction was granted to launch prosecution against the Chairman, Marketing Manager or experts on the staff. There is nothing to suggest that any material pertaining to M/s. Sumex Chemicals Private Limited was placed before the sanctioning authority before sanction was granted.

A perusal of Annexure P/2 shows that no particulars of the ingredients constituting the offence were mentioned in the order. There is nothing to show as to when the sample was taken and by whom and what was the report submitted by the Analyst. In Hanuman Sharma, Marketing Manager, M/s Agro Chemicals v. State of Punjab and others, 1992(3) Recent Criminal Reports 121 sanction to prosecute was granted by the sanctioning authority on a cyclostyled form which did not even make mention of date of taking sample. It was held that the competent authority did not apply its mind and proceedings were quashed on this ground alone. Similar view was held in Criminal Misc. No. 8656M of 1992, Sadhu Singh and others v. State of Punjab, decided on April 26, 1993 of this Court.

In the present case the sanction has been granted on cyclostyled form wherein only the names of the dealer and manufacturer firms and various sections of the Act under which the firms were to be charged were mentioned. It did not contain the name of the Insecticide Inspector, who took the sample nor the date on which the sample was taken and how the same was found to be misbranded. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the person authorised by the State Government, who granted sanction, fully applied his mind and consented to the prosecution of the petitioners after his full satisfaction regarding the commission of the offence.

As a result I allow both the petitioners and quash complaint Annexure P/1 as well as subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.