U.S.Madan vs State of Punjab

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This is an application filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings against him pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar in criminal case No. 122/2 of 1991 for the offences under sections 3(k)(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the rules framed thereunder and also under Section 420 I.P.C. and the Essential Commodities Act.

According to the petitioner, he is the only Chief Marketing Executive of M/s Artee Minerals and he left the service of the said Company on 31.5.1990 and he has been working in some other Company since then. At the time when the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 30.5.1991, he was no more in the service of M/s Artee Minerals. It is further averred that no sanction has been granted by the competent authority to prosecute him. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against him are liable to be quashed.

It is pertinent to note that out of the same proceedings in criminal case No. 122/2 of 1991, a criminal misc. petition No. 9454M of 1993 was filed by M/s Artee Minerals and also by one Surinder Arun Sinha, who was stated to be an employee of Artee Minerals. That petition came up before his Lordship Mr. Justice V.S. Aggarwal. By his judgment dated 6.3.1997, His Lordship quashed the proceedings against the petitioners namely Artee Minerals and Surinder Arun Sinha, who was stated to be the employee of that Company. In the caurse of his judgment, His Lordship observed :

"It is apparent from the aforesaid that as against petitioner No. 2 Surinder Arun Sinha, there is no sanction to prosecute him. Therefore, qua him, the proceedings necessarily have to be quashed, but it can proceed only against Artee Minerals. The order sanctioning prosecution in the connected Cr. Misc. No. 5517M of 1993 is identical. There is no sanction to prosecure the partners who are petitioners 2 to 4 in that petition. As against them also, necessarily the proceedings have to be quashed."

His Lordship after referring to Section 33 of the Insecticides Act also held that every partner is not liable, but when the offence is committed by it only those persons who at the time of committing of offence and who is incharge of or responsible to the company for the conduct of the business as well as the Company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence. Consequently, conjoint reading of Sections 31 and 33 of the Act would show that it has to be shown that the person concerned at the time when offence was committed was incharge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business. In addition to that, the sanction to prosecute must be against specific individuals. His Lordship also referred to the order of sanction. The order of sanction reads as follows :

"In this respect, I am fully satisfied. The relevant record of M/s Jagjit and Company, Patti Distt. Amritsar (and Sections 3(k)(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971) which has been violated by M/s Jagjit and Co. Patti, produced before me.

Now under the powers conferred by Govt. under Section 31(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, I have to act upon. These powers are mentioned in Punjab Govt. Notification No. 15/5/86Agr.2(8)9264 dated 23.6.1986.

I, Bharpur Singh Virk, Joint Director, Agriculture (ICDP), am sending, my consent/report to Sh. Rachhpal Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Patti as the further legal action should be taken against the following :

M/s Jagjit and Co., Patti, Distt. Amritsar

M/s Modern Kheti Store, Hide Market, Amritsar.

M/s Artee Minerals, 15/7 Mathura Road, Faridabad. (Haryana)."

After extracting the above order of sanction, His Lordship observed that it is apparent from the aforesaid order that as against the petitioner No. 2 Surinder Arun Sinha (who is an employee of Artee Minerals), there is no sanction to prosecute him. Therefore qua him, the proceedings necessarily have to be quashed. His Lordship also further went on saying that the accused has been deprived of his valuable right. By the time, the petitioners were served, the shelf life had expired.

The aforesaid judgment of His Lordship has become final.

In view of the Judgment of Hon''ble Mr. Justice V.S. Aggarwal, the proceedings against the petitioner who is an employee of M/s Artee Minerals are liable to be quashed.

I therefore allow this petition and quash the criminal proceedings qua the petitioner U.S. Madan, who is stated to be an employee of M/s Artee Minerals, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar.