Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Shivalik Agro Chemicals vs State on 29 October, 2018
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2969/2018
1. M/s Shivalik Agro Chemicals, B 59, Industrial Area, Phase
VII, Mohali, Distt. SAS Nagar (Punjab) Through Its
Manager- Ajit Kumar (Aged About 40 Years) S/o Sh.
Suresh Kumar.
2. Ajit Kumar S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar, Aged About 40 Years,
Manager Of M/s Shivalik Agro Chemicals, B-59, Industrial
Area, Phase VII, Mohali, Dist. SAS Nagar (Punjab)
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan through Insecticide Inspector Cum Asstt.
Director Of Agriculture (Ext.) Jodhpur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rakesh Verma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.VS Rajpurohit, PP.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 29/10/2018
1. The petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition seeking the following relief :-
"In the wake of above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the present impugned Complaint Case No. 599/11, titled "State Vs. M/s Bharat Seed House and Others", under Section 29(1)
(a) of Insecticides Act, 1968, as pending adjudication in the Court of Ld. A.C.J.M., Jodhpur at Annexure P-1.
Summoning Order dated 19.07.2011 as passed by Ld. C.J.M., Jodhpur at Annexure P-2 and all consequential proceedings arising there from qua the Petitioners may kindly be quashed by this Hon'ble Court."
(2 of 5) [CRLMP-2969/2018]
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners makes a limited submission that as per Section 31 of Insecticides Act, 1968, no prosecution for an offence under this Act can be instituted except by or with the written consent of the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf of the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioners has demonstrated that the order dated 6.1.2011 granting sanction is not in conformity with the legislative intent of Section 31 of the Insecticides Act so much so, that the sanction order does not contain all the details regarding collection of sample, place of drawing the sample and the report of analyst. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention has relied upon the following decisions :-
"(1) S.N. chemicals vs. State of Rajasthan [2000 IAC 555 (Raj.)] Para 8 :- I have carefully gone through the sanction of this case. The sanction does not take care of all these points. It simply mentions names of eight accused persons and does not mention even the name of the Insecticides Inspector who have taken the ample of the insecticide and on what date. In view of the above said law this sanction cannot be held to be valid. Therefore, the prosecution on the basis of this sanction was bad according to law and has to be quashed.
(2) Sadhu Singh vs. State of Punjab [1993(2) RCR (Criminal) 593] Insecticide Act, 1968, Sections 31(1) and 3K(1) - Sample of Insecticide found to be misbranded - Sanction for prosecution by the Authority granted in a cyclostyled form - It did not contain even name of Insecticides Inspector who took the sample nor date of taking sample and how the same found to be misbranded - Sanction to prosecute is an important factor which is not an idle formality - Proceedings quashed.
(3) M/s. Kissan Trading Co. vs. State of Punjab [1996(1) RCR (Criminal) 132] B. Insecticide Act, 1968, Sections 31(1) - Sample of Insecticide found misbranded - Sanction for prosecution accorded by Authority - Sanction (3 of 5) [CRLMP-2969/2018] did not indicate as to who took the sample, from whom it was taken, what was the report of Analyst and how the sample was found misbranded - It showed non- application of mind by the Authority -
Sanction not valid 0 Provisions regarding grant of sanction are mandatory in nature - Proceedings quashed. 1993(2) Recent Criminal Reports 456 and 1992(2) Recent Criminal Reports 313 relied. (4) Hanuman Sharma, Marketing manager, M/s. Agro Chemicals vs. State of Punjab [1992(3) RCR (Criminal) 121] Insecticide Act, 1968, Sections 3(k), 17 & 33 Insecticides Rules, 1971, Rule 27(5) - Sample of fertilizer found to be misbranded - Prosecution of accused - Sanction issued by the Prescribed Authority in a cyclostyled form which did not even make mention of date of taking sample - Held, Authority did not apply it mind - Proceedings quashed. (5) M/s. Pesto Chemicals India Ltd. vs. State of Punjab [1994(3) RCR (Criminal) 484] "Sanction for prosecution did not contain name of Inspector who took the sample and how the sample was found to be misbranded - Cannot be said that Authority authorised to grant sanction fully applied his mind
- Complaint quashed.
(6) Narinder Singh vs. M/s. Chemico Pesticide Combines [1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 311] Sanction order did not contain names of accused and facts constituting offence - No mention made as to who took the sample, from whom it was taken and what was the report of Analyst and how the sample was found misbranded - It was on a cyclostyled form - Held, sanction order was not valid - Proceedings quashed.
(7) D.N. Chaturvedi vs. State of Punjab [1994(2) RCR (Criminal) 133] "Sanction to prosecute granted by Competent Authority in a cyclostyled form - Sanction did not show when and from whom sample was taken and what was the report of Analyst - Name of Inspector who took the sample also not mentioned - Held, sanction was issued without application of mind - Proceedings quashed.
(8) Manjit Singh vs. State of Punjab [1994(1) RCR (Criminal) 650] Insecticide Act, 1968, Sections 3(k), 30(3) and 31(1) Sample of Insecticides found to be misbranded - Sanction for prosecution given by the Competent Authority in a cyclostyled form without giving name of Inspector who took the sample, date on which sample was taken and how the sample was found to be misbranded - Names of Manufacturer, Dealer and Retailer given but names of accused persons not mentioned.
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-2969/2018]
- Held sanction was issued without application of mind and not valid. - Proceedings quashed.
(9) V.K. Pahwa vs. State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector [1994(3) RCR (Criminal) 377] Para 5 - 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 in a stereo-type 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."
3. Learned P.P. submits that the sanction was granted in the year 2011 but the same has been challenged in 2018.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, this Court finds that the precedent law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are fully applicable to the present case and the sanction order dated 6.1.2011 is not in consonance with the legislative intent of Section 31 of the Insecticides Act as they are not reflecting the material particulars viz., collection of sample, place of drawing the sample and the report of analyst. This Court also finds that the summons issued to the petitioners have been received by them only in the year 2018, hence, there is no delay on their part to challenge the proceedings.
5. In view of the above, this misc. petition is allowed. The sanction order dated 6.1.2011 is quashed and set aside. The (5 of 5) [CRLMP-2969/2018] respondent is at liberty to issue fresh sanction order with comprehensive details, if so desired. It is needless to say that without proper sanction the proceeding against the petitioners will not carry on.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J S.Phophaliya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)