INDOFIL CHEMICALS COMPANY BOMBAY Vs. KUNWARSINGH MADHAOSINGH MHANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the proceeding in Criminal Case No 15310 of 1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court. Thane, Heard both the sides.

(2.) THE first Respondent filed a complaint in the Court below against the Petitioners alleging offence under Section 29 (1) (b) and Section 9 (1) (3) and Section 17 (1) (c) of Insecticides Act, 1968. The allegation in the complaint is that the accused No. 1 is a company and accused Nos. 2 to 14 are its Directors and Accused Nos. 15 and 16 are the officers of the Company. The company deals in insecticides. A company or a person engaged in the business of import or manufacture of any insecticide has to apply for registration and get it registered under the Act. The accused No. 1 Company has been importing insecticides by name Dinocap since many years. The application of Accused No. 1 Company given in 1972 for registration was rejected by the Registration Committee in 1982. Then Accused No. 1 made a fresh application on 7-2-1983 which was granted on 11-11-1986. It is alleged that the Inspector under The Act visited the Accused No. 1-Company in 1987 and noticed that the Company had imported insecticides in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985 though it had not been registered under the Act. Since the accused has been dealing with the insecticides and importing the same without registration, it is alleged that the accused have committed offences mentioned above. The learned Magistrate issued process on the said complaint. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused have come up with the present petition. The learned Counsel Shri V. P. Vashi appearing for the Petitioners has questioned the correctness and legality of the impugned criminal proceedings. It was argued that there was no sanction to prosecute the accused as required under Section 31 of the Act and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Then it was submitted that the complaint is filed after the long delay and beyond the period of limitation and therefore, is liable to fresh application on 7-2-1983 which was granted on 11-11-1986. It is alleged that the Inspector under The Act visited the Accused No. 1-Company in 1987 and noticed that the Company had imported insecticides in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985 though it had not been registered under the Act. Since the accused has been dealing with the insecticides and importing the same without registration, it is alleged that the accused have committed offences mentioned above. The learned Magistrate issued process on the said complaint. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused have come up with the present petition. The learned Counsel Shri V. P. Vashi appearing for the Petitioners has questioned the correctness and legality of the impugned criminal proceedings. It was argued that there was no sanction to prosecute the accused as required under Section 31 of the Act and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Then it was submitted that the complaint is filed after the long delay and beyond the period of limitation and therefore is liable to be dismissed summarily on the ground of limitation. Then on merits it was argued that the accused have been importing the materials since many years and that they have not committed any offence. It was also submitted that at any rate, the Directors-Accused Nos. 2 to 14 are not personally liable and their prosecution is not sustainable in law. Smt. S. J. Pingulkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State refuted all the above contentions. She maintained that there is a valid sanction for the prosecution and therefore, there is no bar to continue the criminal proceedings. As far as the question of limitation is concerned it was argued that the Inspector came to know of the offence in 1987 and within three years the complaint is filed and therefore, there was no question of limitation. On merits it was argued that since the accused have been importing insecticides without registration, they are liable to be prosecuted under the Act.

(3.) AS far as the question of sanction is concerned, there is no dispute that a sanction is a condition precedent for a prosecution under the Act. Section 31 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 clearly provides that no prosecution lies except with the written sanction of the State Government. It is true that in the complaint there is no mention about obtaining sanction of the Government. However, at the time of hearing of this Petition, the learned A. P. P. produced the sanction order issued by the Government of Maharashtra in September 1989. It clearly shows that the Government has sanctioned the prosecution of the Company in question. The sanction Order is taken on record.