V.K. SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the office-bearers of the Company known as Sun Beam Agro Chemicals, Punjab, Limited, incorporated under the Companies Act. Petitioner No. 1 has already retired from the employment. The text of the complaint indicates that the Insecticide Inspector visited the premises of the Company on 3.8.1990 and collected the samples of certain fertilizers that were being manufactured in the premises of the Company. The said samples were subjected to analysis, which revealed that the sample were not as per the requirements. In other words, allegedly, the offence under section 3-K, 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, read with sections 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 was committed. After the report of the analysis of the said fertilizer was received, a due notice was served on the Company and the Company was informed about the result of analysis. Thereafter, steps were taken to obtain consent to prosecute as per section 31 of the Insecticides Act. Annexure P5 in the said consent letter, which indicates that the consent was to prosecute Messrs Sun Beam Agro Chemicals, Punjab, Limited, through the Punjab Agro Complex, Salem Tabri, Ludhiana manufacturers. The mention of the name of the person or the accused in the said consent letters assumes significance for the purpose of disposal of this petition.

(2.) THE counsel for the petitioner contended before me that the said letter was a sanction to prosecute and it was devoid of any application of mind that was necessary before the sanction was granted; and secondly, the said sanction was not to prosecute the present petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the case of V.K. Pahwa v. State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector, 1994(3) Recent CR 377; M/s Pesto Chemicals India Ltd. v. State of Punjab, 1994(3) Recent C.R. 484; and Tannu Galhotra alias Neeraj v. State of Punjab, 1994(3) Recent C.R. 501. All these three cases were decided by the same Court. In all these three cases, his Lordship considered section 31 and observed that since the 'sanction' granted under section 31(1) of the Insecticides Act did not give facts and did not reveal the application of mind before sanction, the prosecution based on such sanction was bad. With great respect to the Lordship, it appears that the attention of his Lordship was not invited to the fact that section 31 of the Insecticides Act contemplates a consent to prosecute, and not the sanction to prosecute. Needless to state that the term '"consent" to prosecute is totally different from the term "Sanction" to prosecute. The sanction to prosecute implies application of mind to the facts of the case before the sanctioning authority, granting the sanction. The term "Consent" to prosecute would not necessarily involve such exercise. These two terms are not synonymous to each other. In my opinion therefore, the matter did not depend on the application of those criteria which would normally apply to "Sanction". I may further add that the provisions of section 465, Cr.P.C., should also be taken into consideration while considering the error or irregularity in the sanction to prosecute. That section provides that no finding, sentence or order by Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on the ground of any error or irregularity in any sanction for prosecution, unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. The test applicable while assessing legality of sanction for prosecution would not necessarily be attracted while assessing the legality of consent to prosecute.

(3.) IN the result, I am left with on alternative but to quash the complaint against the present petitioners. However, it is up to the prosecution to consider as to whether it should file a proper complaint in the light of observations made above. In that case, the question regarding the limitation to file complaint would be required to be gone into and be decided by the trial Court. With these observations, the petition is allowed. The complaint stands quashed. Petition allowed.