AJAY HANDA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks quashing of complaint under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act') read with Section/rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, (for short 'the Rules') and also for quashing all the consequent proceedings arising on the basis of the said complaint.

(2.) The present petition has been filed by the proprietor of M/s. Henda Agro Chemicals, Jagraon, on the ground that no valid sanction has been granted for prosecution of the petitioner which is a condition precedent to launch such a prosecution and is not an idle formality. According to the petitioner, the present sanction has been granted on a cyclostyled form mentioning the name of the dealer, distributor and manufacturer. There is no mention of the contents of the report of the analyst nor there is any mention of the specific provision under which the prosecution is sought. Even the name of the Insecticide Inspector who took the sample and other contents have not been mentioned by the sanctioning authority. Reliance has been placed upon the judicial pronouncements of this Court in support of his contention that unless the sanctioning authority has applied his mind and has assigned reasons for granting the sanction, purpose of Section 31 of the Act becomes meaningless and illegal. According to the petitioner, even the names of the persons to be prosecuted have not been mentioned in the sanctioning order. It was thus prayed that the complaint be quashed.

(3.) Pursuance to the notice of motion issued by the Court, reply by way of affidavit has been filed by Sh. Darshan Singh, Insecticides Inspector, Jagraon. In reply, it has been stated that he visited the shop of the petitioner on 10-6-1991 and took the sample of Butachlore 50% batch No. KBEN/1/91 manufactured by Kill Pest Pvt. Limited, Bhopal. This sample was sent for analysis through the office of the Chief Agricultural Officer, Ludhiana, to the Senior Analyst Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana. As per analysis report of this sample, the result shows 19.63% active ingredient contents instead of 50% hence this sample did not conform to ISI specification in respect of active ingredients contents. It has further been submitted that after receiving the copy of analysis report a show cause notice was served vide CAO Ludhiana letter No, 7574 dated 20-6-91 to the concerned arm and a copy of analysis report was also served. Both the copies of notices are annexed as R-2 and R-3 respectively. After obtaining necessary consent under clause 31(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, this prosecution was launched against the petitioner and manufacturer according to written consent. A copy of written consent u/s. 31 (1) is enclosed as R-2.