ARTEE MINERALS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment both Criminal Misc. Nos. 9454-M of 1993 and 5517-M of 1993 can be disposed of together because some of the questions involved in both the petitions are identical.

(2.) M /s Artee Minerals and Surinder Arun Sinha had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the proceedings against them in the case titled State of Punjab v. M/s. Jagjit and Company Railway Road, Patti pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. It pertained to offences punishable under Sections 3(k)(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter described as 'the Act'). Petitioner No. 2 Surinder Arun Sinha is stated to be an employee of petitioner No. 1. It is contended that on the complaint filed, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar had taken cognizance of the above said offences because the sample taken by him was found to be misbranded. The petitioners seek quashing of the said order on the ground that there is no sanction to prosecute petitioner No. 2 and further the sanction has been granted by the authority under Section 31 of the Act without application of mind. Plea has also been raised that even cognizance had been taken mechanically. Consequently, the proceedings as such should be quashed.

(3.) IN the connected Criminal Misc. No. 5517-M of 1993 titled M/s Evergreen Chemical Enterprises and others v. State of Punjab a similar complaint has been made. It has been contended that M/s Evergreen Chemical Enterprises is a partnership concern and is a distributor of M/s. Mascot Agro Chemicals Private Limited. The sample had been taken from the premises of M/s Navneet Singh, Attari and was found to be misbranded. The sample was taken in November, 1990. The shelf life expired in October, 1992. By the time the petitioners were summoned, the shelf life had already been expired. The petitioners were deprived of their valuable right to get the second sample reanalysed from the Central Insecticides Testing Laboratory. Furthermore it is alleged that there is no proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority nor any sanction had been granted to prosecute the persons other than petitioner No. 1.