Sanjay Aggarwal vs State of Punjab

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is a petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of a complaint (Annexure P1) under

the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short, ""the Act"") read with Insecticides Rules, 1971 (for short, ''the Rules"") and summoning order dated 12.6.2000

(Annexure P2) and all subsequent proceedings, has been brought by the petitioner, Sanjay Aggarwal. M/s. Jai Shree Rasayan Udyog Ltd.

Azadpur, Delhi is manufacturing pesticides and insecticides. On 5.5.1999, Insecticide Inspector took sample of an insecticide sold under trade

name ""Butachlor 50% EC, Jolt brand from the premises of a dealer of the same, namely, M/s. Vimal and Company, Ludhiana. The said sample

was found misbranded on analysis. After following the due procedure under the Act, complaint was filed under sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33

of the Act read with rule 27(5) of the Rules against M/s. Jai Shree Rasayan Udyog Ltd. Azadpur, Delhi as accused No. 5 and the petitioner as

individual director of the said Company.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for launching prosecution under the Act, sanction of the State government or a person

authorized in this behalf by the State government is required u/s 31 of the Act. According to him, the sanction is a sine qua non to the institution of

a prosecution for an offence under this Act. He has submitted that Annexure P4 is the sanction granted in this case u/s 31(1) of the Act. He has

further submitted that this sanction is invalid. According to him, besides granting the sanction against M/s. Vimal & Company through Vimal

Bansal, sanction has been granted for instituting proceedings under the Act against M/s. Jai Shree Rasayan Udyog Ltd. through Sanjay Aggarwal,

director and Pardeep Chaudhary, production manager. He has submitted that under this sanction, prosecution cannot be launched against the

individual director i.e., Sanjay Aggarwal, the petitioner. According to him, therefore, the prosecution was not properly initiated and the complaint

against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in this regard on a decision of this Court in Shashank Bhargava Vs. State of Punjab and

another, . In the reported case, insecticide, the sample of which was taken, was found to be substandard. Prosecution was launched against

Managing Director and Chemist of the company, The sanction was obtained for prosecution of the manufacturing company. There was no sanction

for prosecution of the Managing Director or the Chemist in their individual capacity as is there in the present case. Therefore, the prosecution qua

them was held bad and was, consequently, quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on another decision of this court in Sant Lal Surekha Vs. State of Punjab, . The sample of

insecticide in the reported case was found misbranded. Sanction for prosecution was obtained against manufacturing company through its

responsible officer (petitioner). The prosecution of the petitioner, a director of the company, was found to be not in accordance with law because

sanction was obtained for launching prosecution of the company and not of the petitioner. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner was set-

aside.

Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that sanction has been granted for prosecution of the company through the petitioner

and another person. According to him, this is a valid sanction against the petitioner.

The submission of learned State counsel noticed above is contrary to the ratio of the cases cited as above. The sanction granted in this case is

for launching prosecution against M/s. Jai Shree Rasayan Udyog Ltd., Delhi through Sanjay Aggarwal and another but not individually against

Sanjay Aggarwal. It will be deemed to be a sanction for initiating prosecution against the company which may like to be represented through its

authorized representative. However, this sanction is defective qua Sanjay Aggarwal. If Sanjay Aggarwal was to be prosecuted under the Act, the

sanction should have been individually against him and not as a representative of the company. No decision laying down a proposition to the

contrary has been cited before me by learned State counsel. So, in view of the law settled by this court by way of the above said two decision, the

prosecution of Sanjay Aggarwal on the basis of the sanction accorded vide Annexure P4 is bad. Therefore, the prosecution against the petitioner is

liable to be quashed. The petition is, consequently, allowed and the complaint (Annexure P1) along with all subsequent proceedings including

summoning order dated 12.6.2000 (Annexure P2) are quashed qua the petitioner.