Pesto Chemicals India Ltd. vs State of Punjab

V.K. Jhanji, J.

This judgment will dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 3959M of 1992.

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of complaint, Annexure P1 under Section 3(k) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with rule 27(5) of Insecticides Rules, 1971 (for short the rules) pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda.

In brief the facts are that petitioner No. 1 is company whereas petitioner No. 2 is Director. The Company deals in formulating various insecticides and supply through its distributors and dealer. On 9.9.1989, Surjit Singh, Insecticides Inspector, Bhucho Mandi, District Bhatinda visited the shop of dealer M/s. Ram Parshad Som Nath, Bhucho Mandi and selected 3 tins of Vanish P20 (Fenvalrate 20% E.C.) manufactured by petitioner No. 1. One sealed sample was sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad for analysis and the report of the Analyst disclosed that the sample did not conform to its I.S.I. specification in respect of its percentage of active ingredient. Thus the product was found misbranded under Section 3(k) of the Act.

Complaint, Annexure P1 has been filed against the Company and petitioner No. 2 has been arrayed in his capacity as a Director, which supplied material to M/s. Ram Parshad Som Nath. The complaint and the subsequent proceedings have been sought to be quashed on the ground that before launching prosecution. It was necessary to obtain legal sanction from the State Government under Section 31 of the Act. According to the petitioners, no valid sanction has been granted for prosecution of the petitioners. The Sanctioning Authority did not apply its mind before granting sanction to launch prosecution and gave the sanction on a cyclostyled proforma. No details of the facts regarding the same being misbranded were given. Even the name of petitioner No. 2 against whom complaint has been filed, has not been mentioned in the complaint.

In the return filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the sanction granted by the Sanctioning Authority was proper and legal and was accorded after perusal of the relevant record. Petitioner No. 2 is the Director of M/s. Pesto Chemical India Ltd., petitioner No. 1 and is equally liable along with petitioner No. 1. It has further been stated that petitioner No. 2 being Director of the Company having administrative powers, was running a business of manufacturing and supplying of insecticides under the name and style of M/s. Pesto Chemicals (India) Ltd. New Delhi and he has been prosecuted accordingly.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length I am of the view that the petition deserves to succeed and complaint, Annexure P1 against the petitioners deserves to be quashed. Complaint has been filed against M/s. Pesto Chemicals India Ltd. 96667 Telian Street, Behind Novelty Cinema, Post Box No. 147 through Shri Suraj Bhan, Director and Som Nath s/o Ram Parshad, resided of Bhucho Mandi of M/s. Ram Parshad Som Nath, Bhucho Mandi (Dealer). Copy of Sanction JUDGMENT Annexure P5 shows that the consent/ sanction to prosecute was given against M/s. Ram Parshad Som Nath, Bhucho Mandi (Dealer) and Pesto Chemicals India, 96667, Telian Street, Behind Novelty Cinema. Post Box. No. 1472, Delhi (manufacturer). The name of petitioner No. 2 does not find mention in the sanction order. In the complaint, it has not been mentioned as to how the petitioner No.1 was being prosecuted when there is no sanction granted for his prosecution by any competent authority. Sanction 31(1) of the Act reads as under :

"No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government."

According to the aforesaid Section, the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence under the Act, except when a proper sanction is granted by the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government. For the sanction to be valid, it has to be established that sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence with which the accused is proposed to be charged and it is desirable that the facts should be mentioned in the sanction. Sanction in the present case was given on a stereotype form, where in only the name of the firm, dealer, distributor and the company of the manufacturer and also the various sections of the Act under which the firms and the company were to be charged, are mentioned. It does not contain the name of the Insecticide Inspector who took the sample and how the same was found to be misbranded. In the absence of these particulars, it cannot be said that the person authorised by the State Government to grant sanction fully applied his mind and consented to the prosecution of the petitioner after his full satisfaction regarding the commission of offences. In Hanuman Sharma, Marketing Manager, M/s. Agro Chemicals v. State of Punjab, 1992(3) Recent Criminal Reports 121 , sanction to prosecute was granted by the Sanctioning Authority on a cyclostyled form which did not even mention the date of taking sample. It was held that the competent authority did not apply its mind and proceedings were quashed. Similar view was taken in Criminal Misc. No. 8685M of 1992, Sadhu Singh and others v. State of Punjab, decided on April 26, 1993 by this Court. The facts of the present case are pari materia to the facts of the aforesaid cases. Thus, no exception can be made in the case of the petitioners.

As a result, I allow this petition and quashed the complaint, Annexure P1 and the subsequent proceedings.