K S HEDGE Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who has been arrayed as A-Z out of three accused has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated for the alleged offences under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 29(1)(a)(i) of the Insecticide Act 1968.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no specific allegation leveled against the petitioner herein in the complaint except stating that the petitioner was the Managing Director of the first accused company. It is submitted that there is not even an allegation to the effect that the petitioner was responsible and incharge of the conduct of the business of the first accused company. THE learned counsel would further contend that before initiating prosecution for the above said offence, previous sanction is to be obtained from the competent authority. It is contended that though the prosecution obtained sanctioned from the Joint Director of Agriculture, Cuddalore, the same was not obtained for prosecuting the petitioner herein and as such the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) IT is sent that the petitioner has been arrayed as A-2 out of three accused and he is facing trail for the alleged offences as stated above. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that there is no valid sanction accorded for prosecuting the petitioner herein in his individual name and as such the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the case.