Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1066 (PNJ)

Agro Chemicals, Jaipur v. State Of Punjab

2001-10-01

V.M.JAIN

body2001
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., filed by the accused-petitioner, seeking the quashment of the criminal complaint under Sections 3(k), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon. 2. In the present petition it was alleged that the petitioner was the Managing Director of M/s. Agro Chemicals, Jaipur. It was alleged that the allegations in the complaint were that on 15.8.1989, the Insecticide Inspector had drawn a sample of insecticide in question from the shop of M/s. Kishan Beej Bhandar, Raman Mandi (Bathinda) and the sample was sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Hyderabad for analysis and was declared as misbranded. It was alleged that the petitioner was impleaded being the manufacturer of the said insecticide. It was alleged that the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon against the petitioner were liable to be quashed inter alia on the ground that the Insecticide Inspector had sent the sample for analysis directly to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Hyderabad instead of sending it to the Insecticide Analyst and in this manner, the petitioner did not get opportunity to rebut the report of the Insecticide Analyst. It was further alleged that the sanction to prosecute the petitioner was bad in law inasmuch as there was no reference about the report of the Analyst in the sanction order and as such it was not a valid sanction. 3. In the written reply filed by Shri Bikkar Singh, Insecticide Inspector, it was alleged that the sample was rightly sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Hyderabad, as per the provisions of the Insecticides Act and no right of the petitioner had been infringed. It was alleged that the sanction was dully granted by the competent authority after applying mind to the facts of the case and relevant Act and Rules. It was alleged that full particulars and facts of the case were placed on the file and after applying mind the competent authority had issued the necessary sanction for the prosecution of the accused. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 5. It was alleged that full particulars and facts of the case were placed on the file and after applying mind the competent authority had issued the necessary sanction for the prosecution of the accused. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 5. So far as sending the sample directly to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Hyderabad by the Insecticide Inspector is concerned, in my opinion, the Insecticide Inspector had the right to send the sample directly to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 . The provisions of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act are similar to the provisions of Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Honble Supreme Court in Ram Shankar Misra v. State of U.P., AIR 1979 Supreme Court 727, with regard to a case under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, had up-held the action of the Drugs Inspector in sending the sample directly to the Director Central Insecticides Laboratory, Calcutta. The Honble Supreme Court found no substance in the contention on behalf of the accused-appellant (by sending the sample straight to the Director Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta) that the appellant was deprived of his right under Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, of requesting the court to send the sample for analysis by the Central Drugs Laboratory. It was further held that the words "unless the sample had already been tested or analysed in the Central Drugs Laboratory" clearly indicate that apart from the mode prescribed under Section 25 of the said Act, the sample could be sent for analysis to the Central Drugs Laboratory. Under Section 25(1) of the said Act, the Government Analyst is competent to submit the report about the drugs. Under Section 25(4) of the said Act, the Central Insecticides Laboratory was competent to submit the report about the drugs. Similar provision exists under the Insecticides Act, inasmuch as under Section 24(1) of this Act, the Insecticide Analyst is competent to analyse the sample of insecticides, while under Section 24(4) of the Act, the Central Insecticides Laboratory is competent to analyse the samples. Similar provision exists under the Insecticides Act, inasmuch as under Section 24(1) of this Act, the Insecticide Analyst is competent to analyse the sample of insecticides, while under Section 24(4) of the Act, the Central Insecticides Laboratory is competent to analyse the samples. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, it could not be said that the petitioner had suffered any prejudice merely because the Insecticide Inspector had thought it fit to send the sample of insecticides directly to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Hyderabad, in the present case. 6. The learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted before me that the sanction granted by the competent authority in the present case suffered from non-application of mind inasmuch as the sanction order is quite vague and omnibus and the sanctioning authority had failed to point out the particulars on which the prosecution was based. The reliance was placed on the law laid down by Bombay High Court, in the case reported as Gahininath Bhimrao Patekar v. State of Maharashtra and another, 1987(1) FAC 95, in which reliance was placed on the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, in the case reported as A.K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1986(2) RCR(Crl.) 569 (SC) : 1986(3) FAC 66 (SC). 7. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner. Annexure P-2 is the copy of the sanction granted by Joint Director of Agricultural, under Section 31(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 , granting the written consent/sanction to prosecute the various accused, including accused-petitioner M/s. Agro Chemicals. A perusal of the said sanction order would show that the Joint Director, Agricultural, was satisfied from the perusal of the relevant record, which was placed before him, that the accused had committed the breach of provisions of Sections 3k(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 and in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 31(1) of the Insecticides Act, he was giving the consent/sanction to Bikkar Singh, Insecticide Inspector, to institute prosecution against the accused, including accused-petitioner M/s. Agro Chemicals, being the manufacturer. From the perusal of said sanction order, it would be clear that the Joint Director, Agricultural, had granted his sanction from the perusal of the relevant record, which was placed before him. From the perusal of said sanction order, it would be clear that the Joint Director, Agricultural, had granted his sanction from the perusal of the relevant record, which was placed before him. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, at this stage, it could not be said that the sanction order was passed by the Joint Director, Agricultural, without any application of mind or that the sanction order was vague and omnibus as alleged. I am further of the opinion that on the facts and circumstances of the present case, it could not be said that the sanctioning authority had not pointed out the relevant particulars on the basis of which the prosecution was based, which may entitle the accused-petitioner to seek the quashment of the criminal complaint and subsequent proceedings taken thereon, at this stage, when the case is still at the stage of recording evidence, after the accused-petitioner has been summoned in the criminal complaint. In Hari Singh Verma v. State of Haryana, 1997(1) RCR(Crl.) 156, also the consent order contained a specific averment that the Director of Agricultural Haryana, who was the competent authority under the Act, had accorded his consent for the prosecution of the accused- petitioners after careful examination of the Analyst report. Under those circumstances, it was held that the question as to what record was produced before him and whether he applied his mind before granting his consent, is a question of fact which can be determined only after taking evidence during the trial and such a question could not be decided on affidavit evidence. 8. The authority 1987(1) FAC 95 (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner, in my opinion, would have no application to the facts of the present case. In the reported case, Bombay High Court was considering the validity of the sanction after the accused had been convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate and against conviction, the appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the law laid down by the Bombay High Court, would have no application to the facts of the present case, at this stage. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the law laid down by the Bombay High Court, would have no application to the facts of the present case, at this stage. The question as to whether the sanction granted by the Joint Director, Agricultural is valid or otherwise, would be gone into by the trial Magistrate after the evidence is led by the parties and the sanction order is proved, in acceptance with law. No other point has been urged before me in this petition. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed.