LACHHI RAM Vs. INSPECTOR INSECTICIDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LACHHI Ram and Mohanlal have presented this application under sec. 482, Cr. P. C. , for quashing the proceedings against them under sec. 18 (2)/29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on a complaint presented by Habans Singh, Insecticides Inspector before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Gangangar.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the prosecution case, as stated in the complaint is that the accused persons, namely, Thakur Dass, Lachhi Ram son of Thakur Dass, Shyam Sunder son of Thakur Dass, residents of Sri Ganganagar for firm Thakur Dass and Sons and the accused Mohanlal are carrying on the business of sale of insecticides at shop No. 168, Jawahar Market, Sri Ganganagar, for which they have no licence, though they had licence to carry on the said business at shops Nos. 211 and 212, Railway Road, Sri Ganganagar. There was a sign-board for the sale of insecticides outside the shop No. 168. The complainant visited shop No. 168 on 13-9-1976 and found insecticides medicines displayed for sale. On inquiry from the sales man, it was found that the shop is of Messrs. Thakur Dass and Sons. After some time the sales man called Lachhi Ram son of Thakur Dass, who also informed that the shop is of Messrs. Thakur Dass and Sons and produced licence No. 18. The said licence was not for shop No. 168. Thus, there was a contravention of the licence punishable under sec. 29 (3) of the Act. Before presenting the complaint a written consent was obtained from the Dy. Director (Plant Protection), Rajasthan, Jaipur, who is a person authorised by the State Government under sec. 31 (1) of the Act. This consent was for the prosecution of Messrs. Thakur Dass and sons.

(3.) ON perusal of the above provisions, it would be clear that section 31 bars institution of prosecution for an offence under the Act unless the prosecution is by the State Government or by a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government or with the written consent of the State Government or with the written consent of a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government. Section 31 (1) is couched in the negative language. Whenever any prosecution is made, not by the State Government or by a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government, the condition precedent is, that there should be a written consent of the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government. Unless there is such written consent, cognizance of offence cannot be taken by the court. The provision of according of written consent has a certain aim behind it and that appears to be, pre-vension of frivolous prosecutions. The authority issuing consent will examine the facts of the case and if in its opinion the, case is found fit and proper for the prosecution, the authority will accord necessary consent. I shall be dealing with the cases in which similar provisions under the Adulteration Act have come up for consideration.