Sadhu Singh vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Sandhu Singh and two other partners of M/s. Kissan Pesticides and Seed Centre Mandi Road, Sultanpur Lodhi filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside complaint filed under Sections 3K(1), 17, 18, 19 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (the Act for short) read with Rules 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules 1971 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioners after obtaining a licence from the Chief Agricultural Officer, Kapurthala for the purpose of selling, stocking and exhibiting for sale different types of Insecticides carried on their business at Sultanpur Lodhi. The Insecticides Inspector inspected their premises on 12.11.1990 and took a sample of three sealed packets if B.H.C. 50% from them. At the time of taking the sample the packets were in sealed condition and were properly stored. Each packet contained 500 grams of B.H.C. 50%. One sample was sent for analysis to the Senior Technical Assistant, Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh. As per report of the Insecticides Analyst, the sample was found misbranded as it did not conform to the relevant ISI specifications.

The petitioners alleged that manufacturing date of the Insecticides was March 1990 and its expiry date was February, 1991. Although the present complaint was filed on 13.12.1991 petitioner No. 1 appeared for the first time in court on 31.3.1992 when he was served. The other two petitioners who resided in Uttar Pradesh were not served. By the time petitioner No. 1 appeared in court self life of the sample had already expired and he was debarred from praying for reanalysis of the sample from Central Insecticides Laboratory. It was further pleaded that the samples were in the sealed container and were properly stored. So the petitioners were protected under subSections 3 of Section 30 of the Act. No proper sanction was obtained before launching the prosecution.

In the return filed by respondent, it was pleaded that Harbans Singh one of the partners of the firm M/s Kissan Pesticides and Seed Centre. Sultanpur, Lodhi appeared before the trial Court on 3.1.92 before the self life of the sample had expired and he also moved an application for reanalysis but his application was rejected as it was not filed within 28 days of the receipt of the notice. As regards the protection under Section 30(3) claimed by the petitioners it was maintained that there was nothing to indicate that the packets were sealed by the manufacturer or that the material in question was purchased from M/s United Pesticides Ambala City in sealed condition. This was a matter to be decided by the Trial court after evidence was led. Regarding sanction it was pleaded that sanction was proper and was granted after due application of mind by Joint Director, Agriculture.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioner addressed arguments only on the question of sanction for prosecution being invalid and he did not press the other grounds mentioned in the petition. It was contended that the competent authority did not apply its mind before granting sanction and gave the sanction on a cyclostyled proforma. No details of the facts were given as to how the sample was found misbranded. A valid sanction is to be granted by the sanctioning authority after it was specified that a case for sanction has been made out constituting of offence. I find that this contention of the learned counsel is quite valid because the to prosecute is an important factor and a condition precedent for launching the prosecution. This is not an idle formality. Section 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 these provisions a 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. The sanction is required to be given by an authorised person after full application of mind. For sanction to be valid it must be established that sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence with which the accused is purposed 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 cyclostyled form wherein only the name of the firm and various sections of the Act under which the firm was to be charged were mentioned. It even did not contain the name of the Insecticides Inspector who took the sample nor the date on which the sample was taken and how the same was found to be misbranded. In the absence of the these particulars it cannot be said that person authorised by the State Government to grant sanction fully applied his mind and consented to the prosecution of the petitioners after his full satisfaction regarding the commission of offence by them.

As a result I allow this petition and quash the complaint Annexure P2 as well as subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.