M S MALIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this order, I shall dispose of aforesaid petitions as identical questions of law and facts are involved, for adjudication. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CRM-M-13054-2013. Counsel for the petitioner contends that Union of India (respondent) through its authorised representative filed complaint under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 for violation of Section 3(k) and 17 of the Act against M/s Crystal Phosphates Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Company'), Sh.Arvind Kumar Tyagi its Director and the petitioner, another Director of the Company. The learned trial Court has summoned the accused to face trial for the aforesaid offences.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are unsustainable as the same are barred for want of sanction under Section 31 of the Act. It is submitted that as per Annexure P3 titled 'Consent for Prosecution', Sh.A.K. Singh, Director of Agriculture, Haryana accorded permission for launching prosecution against the company and Sh.Arvind Kumar Tyagi, Director and Chief Chemist-cum- Production Incharge being the responsible person representing the manufacturing company but the sanction order does not make reference to the present petitioner. In support of his contention, he cited various judgments passed by this Court in S.C.Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., 1990 1 RCR(Cri) 702, K.G.Papu and another Vs. State of Punjab, 1996 1 RCR(Cri) 795, G.V.Devasahayam Vs. State of Haryana,2002 2 RCR(Cri) 793, K.N.Dwivedi Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 4 RCR(Cri) 1033 and Sant Lal Surekha Vs. State of Punjab, 2009 4 RCR(Cri) 981.

(3.) Mr.Ajay Kaushik, Advocate representing Union of India has fairly conceded that in the order passed by the Director, Agriculture, Haryana to sanction prosecution against the company and Sh.Arvind Kumar Tyagi, there is no reference to the present petitioner. However, it is submitted that as sanction to prosecute the company was granted on 21.09.2012 (Annexure P3), the petitioner being one of the directors of the company can be prosecuted for the offence committed by the company in view of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act.