S N CHEMICALS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Cr. Misc. Petitions are to be decided together as both of them challenge the complaint dated 29. 10. 1991 and cognizance in Cr. Case No. 605/91 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Anupgarh District Sriganganagar. Learned Magistrate, by order dated 29. 10. 1991, proceeded against the accused persons whose names are mentioned in the complaint. They are eight in number.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, Pramod Narain Katiyar was Insecticide Inspector at the relevant time and was authorised to submit complaint under Section 31 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred as `the Act' ). On 25. 10. 1990 M/s Zamidara Agro Chemicals was checked and sample of monocrotophos 36% SL was pur-chased vide bill No. 3276. The sample was sent for analysis to the Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad (Haryana ). It did not confirm to the relevant standard i. e. specification in its active ingredient content acidity test requirements and was found to be substandard and misbranded. Notice was given to M/s Zamidara Agro Chemicals, Anupgarh. Thereafter sanction was obtained. It was also stated in the complaint that manufacturing company was M/s S. N. Chemicals Industries and it has also committed offence. As stated earlier, learned Magistrate took cognizance against all the eight persons mentioned in the complaint.

(3.) THE next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the prosecution sanction is not legal and valid as it does not contain the facts constituting offence nor grounds for satisfaction. It has also been submitted that the sanction on its face value shows that it has been given mechanically and without application of mind of the competent authority. Section 31 of the Act provides that no prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by or with the written consent of the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government. In M/s Gupta Chemical's case (supra) the point was considered and it was held that when sanction does not contain the facts constituting offence nor grounds for satisfaction, it is not a valid sanction. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a number of judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court apart from this judgment of the Rajasthan High Court on this point. In M/s Dhamija Sales Corporation vs. State of Punjab (4), and in Manjit Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab (5), the sanction was in a cyclostyled form. It was observed in these cases that the sanctioning authority was required to apply mind as the same is required to be made to come to the conclusion that not only as to what offence is committed as also as to who has committed the same and who is to be prosecuted. In D. N. Chaturvedi and another vs. THE State of Punjab (6) the sanction did not contain the name of the Insecticide Inspector who took the sample nor did it mention the date of which the sample was taken and how the same was found to be misbranded. It was held that the person who granted sanction did not fully apply his mind and, therefore, the sanction was not valid. In Hanuman Sharma vs. State of Punjab (7) it was held that it was necessary that the date on which sample was allegedly taken should be mentioned in the sanction.