RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, a quashing has been sought of complaint, Annexure P -1, which has been filed against the petitioner and also against Banarsi Dass and Narinder Singh under Sections 3(k) (1), 17, 18, 19 and 33 of the Insecticides Act read with Section 27(5) of Insecticides Rules, 1971. Quashing has been sought on the ground that no written consent in regard to prosecution of Rajinder Singh son of Kewal Singh has been filed and also that the written consent/sanction under Section 31(1) of the Insecticides Act is vague. In support of his submissions, counsel has relied on judgment in 1994(3) R.C.R. 484.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel at some length, I am of the view that the complaint qua petitioner No. 1 only, deserves to be quashed. Written consent/sanction placed on record as Annexure P -3 has shown that written consent has been given only to prosecute petitioners No. 2, 3 and Banarsi Dass owner of M/s. Punjab Beej Bhandar, M/s. Delhi Agriculture Store and M/s. Chemic Pesticides Ltd. Proprietor M/s. Shakti Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. through company's responsible person Sh. Narinder Singh. There, is no written consent with regard to filing off complaint against petitioner No. 1. Accordingly, complaint qua Rajinder Singh, petitioner No. 1 shall stand quashed. As regards the ground that written/consent/sanction is vague, there is no merit in the same. A reading of the written consent/sanction has shown that the Joint Director, Agriculture, after going through the record was satisfied that concerned provisions under which the complaint has been filed were violated. The judgment cited by counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case, being clearly distinguishable.

(3.) PETITION stands allowed only to the extent indicated above. As regards petitioners No. 2 and 3, the petition shall stand dismissed. Petition dismissed.