RAJ PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge here is to the complaint under Section 3(k)(i) and Section 18(1)(c) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rule 19(1)(vii) of the Insecticides Act, 1971.

(2.) A reading of Section 31 of the Act, would show that no prosecution for an offence thereunder can be instituted except with the written consent of the State Government or a person authorized in this behalf by the State Government. It is the contention of Mr. A.C. Jain, Advocate, that no such written consent is forthcoming in the present case and consequently, the complaint against the petitioners cannot proceed.

(3.) A reference to the material on the record would show that the alleged offence is said to have been committed on July 20, 1983 and the complaint against the petitioners was filed in the court on April 6, 1984. The only notification which the counsel for the State sought to advert to, to satisfy the requirement of Section 31 of the Act, was that of the State Government on February, 1976 (Annexure P -3), whereby in exercise of powers conferred by Section 20 of the Act, all Gazetted Officers and Agricultural Inspectors were appointed as Insecticide Inspector for the purpose of the Act. It is pertinent to note that no such authorisation exists with regard to Section 31 of the Act, which is the relevant provision of law here. Indeed, it was only on June 23, 1986, that a specific notification was subsequently issued by the State Government in behalf. The subsequent issuance of such a notification cannot retrospectively validate the present lack of jurisdiction in the filing of the complaint against the petitioner in the present case. The complaint is accordingly, hereby quashed and consequently the proceedings pending against the petitioners must be set aside.