HINDUSTAN PULVERISING MILLS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner M/s Hindustan Pulversing Hills has filed the present petition through its Director K.K. Mishra, pleading that the petitioner could not be prosecuted under Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rules 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 as the sanction for the prosecution of the Director of the firm etc. had not been granted vide (Annexure P-2). It has also been prayed that the complaint (Annexure P-1), impleading the present petitioner through Shri K.K. Mishra was, therefore, liable to be quashed. It has also been prayed that the sanction order (Annexure P-2) with resect to the other accused had also been mechanically made and did not display any application of mind as even the facts leading to the grant of sanction had not been set out. The learned counsel has cited Tannu Galhotra alias Neeraj v. State of Punjab, 1994(3) RCR 501, D.N. Chaturvedi v. State of Punjab, 1994(2) Recent CR 133 and K.G. Papu and another v. State of Punjab, 1996(1) Recent CR 795, in support of his argument.

(2.) AS against this, Mr. Randhir Singh, the learned DAG, appearing for the respondent-State has relied on Sections 31 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 to contend that whenever an offence had been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, or was responsible to the company for the conduct of its as well as the company, would be deemed to be guilty and the onus to the contrary had to be discharged by such person.

(3.) THE judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner do indicate that before a sanction is granted, 'the sanction order itself must indicate a clear application of mind. In the sanction order (Annexure P-2) there is no reference as to when the sample had been taken and how and why the same had been found to be misbranded. It also reveals that though M/s Hindustan Pulverising Mills, the petitioner, had been referred to in the sanction order but there is no reference whatsoever of Shri K.K. Mishra, its Director. The filing of the complaint qua him is, therefore, bad in law on this score as well. The proceedings initiated on the complaint (Annexure P-1) are accordingly quashed but liberty is left to the respondents to grant a fresh sanction against one or all the accused in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on December 5, 2001. Dasti. Order accordingly.