Judgment Judgment in Hindi ds-ds- vkpk;Z, U;k;kf/kifr-&;g ;kfpdk /kkjk 482 nar~ ;kphx.k Øksi gsYFk izksMDV~l - iz- la- ds vUrxZfy-] lh- ds- lcjoky] ,e- vkj- ckthdj] Jhefr v:.kk lcjoky ,oa ,l-Mh-ukydqj dh vksj ls izLrqr gqbZ gS ftlesa bLrnq vk dh xbZ gS fd muds fo#) tks QkStnkjh izdj.k la[;k 106@1992 v/khuLFk a yfEcr gS] mls vikLr fd;k tkosA ;kfpdk izLrqU;k;ky; esr gksus ij jkT; ljdkj dks uksfVl tkjh dMZ Hkh v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk ryc fd;k x;kA tu vfHk;ksfd;k x;k ,oa jstd jkT; ljdkj dh vksj ls mifLFkr vk, gSaA nksuksa i{kksa dks xzg.kkFkZ izØe ij gh foLr`r esa lquk x;kA i esa bl izdkj gSa fd ,d bLrxklk jkT; ljdkj dh vks 2-rF; izdj.k ds la{ksj ls tfj, ch-Mh-kekZ] dhVukkh fujh{kd] Ñf"k vf /kdkjh ¼ikS/k lay; lgk;d funskd Ñf "k] Jhxaxkuxj dh j{k.k½] dk;kZvksj ls fo#) Mhyj eSllZ lh-lh-isLVhlkbZM~l ,.M QVhZykbZtj] jkevorkj }kjk lh-lh-isLVhlkbZM~l ,.M QVhZykbZtj dsljhflagiqj] fMLVªwVj hC;Vj eSllZ fodkl ,UVjizkbZtst] Jhxaxkuxj] enuyky] izksijkbZfodkl ,UVjizkbZtst] Jhxaxkuxj ,oa fuekZrk eSllZ ØkFk gSYFk izkMDV~l fy-] ch-Mh-lkcjoky] ,l- Mh-ukydqj] lh-ds- lkcjoky] ,e-vkj- ckthdj ,oa Jherh v:.kk lCcjoky ds fo#) /kkjk 17¼1½ , o 11 lifBr /kkjk 29¼1½ dhVukkh vf /kfu;e] 1968 ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr isk fd;kA bLrxkls esa ;g rF; tkfgj fd, fd Ñf"k vf /kdkjh ¼ikS/k laj{k.k½ dks dhVukkh fujh{kd dh kfDr;ka iznku dh xbZ gSaA eSllZ lh-lh- isLVhlkbZM ,.M QVhZykbZtj dhVukkd nok foØsrk gSa rFkk budks dhVukkh ykbZlsal fn;k gqvk gSA fnukad 30-03-1990 dks dhVukkh fujh{kd jktdqekj kekZ }kjk dhVukkd nok eksuksØksVksQkl 36 ,y-,y- cSp ua- 53 fuekZrk eSllZ ØkWFk gSYFk izkMDV~l fy- dk uewuk lhYM ,d yhVj iSafdx ls foys"k.k lkj fy;k x;k Fkk vkSgsrq dhVukkh vf /kfu;e ds izko/kkuqj uewuk lhycUn fd;k x;k rFkk uewus dk ,d Hkkx QeZ ds ekfyd jkekorkj ds lqiqnZ fd;k x;kA foys"k.k gsrq 08-05-1990 dks jktLFkku LVsV jk] t;iqisLVhlkbZM VsLVhax yscksjsVjh] nqxkZiqj dks fHktok;k x;k] ftldh fjiksVZ 26-06-1990 dks izkIr gqbZ uksr nok fel&czkUMsM vkSj ;g fel&czk.MsM ik;k x;kA mlds vuqlkj eksØksVksikl 36 ,l-,y- mDr of .kZikbZ xbZA eSllZ lh-lh- isLVhlkbZM~l dsljhflagiqjk dks mDr of .kZr nok fel&czkUMsM ik, tkus ls uksfVl fn;k x;k o foys"k.k fjiksVZ dh izfr nh xbZA dkj.k crkvks mÙkj esa lh-lh-isLVhlkbZM~l dsljhflagiqj us nok fMLVªwhC;Vj QeZ eSllZ fodkl ,UVjizkbZtst] 2 b.MLVªh;y bLVsV] Jhxaxkuxj ls izkIr dh xbZA l fy- ubZ fnYyh }kjk fufeZfel&czkUMsaM nok eSllZ ØkFk gSYFk izkMDV~r gS tks mudks 20-07-1989 }kjk fMLVªwhC;Vj QeZ eSllZ fodklhC;Vj eSllZ fodkl ,UVjizkbZtst] Jhxxkauxj dks lIykbZ dhA fMLVªqrk QeZ eSllZ ØkFk gS,UVjizkbZtst o fuekZYFk izkMDV~l fy- ubZ fnYyh dks Hkh dkj.k crkvks uksfVl fn;k] q ftudk Hkh mÙkj izkIr gqvkA bl izdkj vfHk; Drx.k }kjk fel&czkUMsM dhVukkd jlk;u dk cspku] iznkZu] Hk.Mkj o fuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS blfy, lHkh bl vijk/k dh nks"kh gSaA /kkjk 31¼1½ dhVukkh vf /kfu;e ds rgr vfHk;ksqtu LohÑfr Hkh izkIr dh xbZA bl izdkj vfHk; Drx.k }kjk dhVukkh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17¼1½¼,½¼lh½¼Mh½ rFkk 18 dk mYya?ku fd;k gS] tks /kkjk 29¼1½¼,½ ds vUrxZr n.Muh; gSA 3-mijksDr bLrxklk U;kf ;d eftLVsªV] Jh dj.kiqa izLrqvk] ftl ij izj ds U;k;ky; esr gqdj.k esa izlaKku fy;k tkdj vfHk; Drx.k dks ryc fd;k x;k vkSqqj izdj.k vHkh Hkh rych vfHk; Drx.k esa gh gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA mijksDr QkStnkjh izdj.k dks fujLr djus gsrq Øksi gSYFk izksMDV~l fy-] lh-ds- lCcjoky] ,e-vkj- ckthdj] Jherh v:.k lCcjoky o ,l-Mh-ukydqj }kjk ;g ;kfpdk izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 4-bl ;kfpdk esa ;ksX; vfHkHkk"kd ;kphx.k }kjk izFke eq[; fcUnq ;g mBk;k x;k fd fnukad 15-07-1989 dks ;g dhVukkd ekuksØksVksikl ds fuekZrk }kjk dhVukkd cukbZ xbZ Fkh vkSj 14-07-1990 dks bldh dkykof /k lekIr gksus dh rkjh[k FkhA 30-03-1990 dks uewus fy, x, vkSj 08-05-1990 dks j fokyst;iq"kd dks tk¡p gsrq ;s uewus fHktok, x,A fnukad 26-06-1990 dks foys"kd dh fjiksVZ izkIr gqbZ] mlds ckn 27-10-1990 dks fuekZrk dks uksfVl tkjh djuk crk;k x;k gS] ftldk 13-11-1990 dks fuekZrk }kjk Li"V :i ls tokc fn;k x;k fd uewus dh rkjh[k iwoZ gh fudy pqdh gS vkSj iqu% bldk fokys"k.k djkuk lEHko ugha gksxkA mlds ckotwn fnukad 11-01-1991 dks bl izdj.k esa bLrxklk isk djus dh LohÑfr tkjh dh xbZ vkSj 18-02-1992 dks bLrxklk isk fd;k x;kA ;ksX; vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZx.k&vfHk Drx.k dh vksqj ls cgl jgh fd /kkjk 24¼4½+ dhVukkh vf /kfu;e ds rgr izkFkhZx.k dks ;g dkuwuh vf /kdkj Fkk fd os tks uewus mls fn, x, gSa mls iqu% foysf "kr djk ldrs FksA bl izdj.k easmUgsa uksfVl fnukad 27-10-1990 dks tkjh fd;k x;k rc rd bl dhVukkd dh dkykof /k fnukad 14-07-1990 dks gh lekIr gks pqdh Fkh vkSj bLrxklk fnukad 18-02-1992 dks isk fd;kA bl izdkj bu vk/kkjksa ij qmudk rdZ jgk fd vfHk; Drx.k vius dkuwuh vf /kdkjksa dk le; ij bLrseky ugha dj lds vkSj uewus dks iqqf "kr ugha djk lds] vr% vfHk;Drx.k ds fo#) dksbZ Hkh dk;okgh ugha py ldrh gS vkSu% fokysqZj tks X; vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZx.k }kjk vius rdZ leFkZbLrxklk isk fd;k x;k gS] mls vikLr fd;k tkosA ;ksu eas] izhe dksVZ dsls1999 ¼8½ lqt 190] ¼ ,Q-,-lh-86] ¼ kr nLrkostkr dh vksj Hkh /;ku vkdf "kfnukad 26-09-1990 vkSj eSllZ ØkWi gsYFk izksMDV~l fy- dkvkSj mldk ØkWi gsYFk ilEcfU/ ksMDV fd;kA /kkjk 24¼4½+ dhVukkh vf /kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dh vksj Hkh /;ku vkdf "kZr fd;kA X; tu vfHk;ks5-blds foijhr ;kstd dk rdZ jgk fd bl izdj.k esa U;k;ky; }kjk reke a ij fopkj djus ds ckn esqifjfLFkfr;ksa 1992 esa izlaKku fy;k x;k gS vkSj vfHk;Drx.k dh rych dh tk jgh gS vkSqj reke vfHk; Drx.k mifLFkr Hkh ugha gq, gSaaA reke vk/kkjksa ij fopkj djus ds ckn gh blesa vfHk;kstu dh LohÑfr nh xbZ FkhA /kkjk 24 dh ikyuk ds vuqlkj uksfVl dk tokc ugha fn;k x;k] u iqu% tk¡p djkus dh dksbZ bLrnqvk gh dh gSA bl izdkj mudk rdZ gS fd /kkjk 24¼4½ dhVukkh vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dk guu ugha gqvk] bl vk/kkj ij dk;Zokgh vikLr ugha dh tkosA X; vfHkHkk"kd ;kphx.k }kjk izLrqdu fd;k x;k o 6-ejss }kjk ;ksr fofup;kas dk vknj iwoZd voyksi=koyh dk voyks du fd;k x;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd ;g bLrxklk jktLFkku jkT; tfj, ch-Mh- kekZ] bUlsDVhlkbZM bUlisDVj Ñf "k vf/kdkjh ¼ikS/k laj{k.k½] dk;kZy; lgk;d funskd Ñf "k] l ,.M QVhZykbZJhxaxkuxj }kjk eSllZ lh-lh-isLVhlkbZM~tj] 27&,] /kku e.Mh] dsljhflagijq] jkevorkj ds fo#) Mhyj dh gSfl;r ls] eSllZ fodkl ,UVjizkbZtst ,oa enuyky ds fo#) fMLVªwhC;Vj dh gSfl;r j eSllZ ØkFk gsYFk izkMDV~DVj ] ,l- Mh-ukyqls vkSl fy-] ch-Mh-lcjoky] eSusftax Mk;jsdj lh-ds- lcjoky] ,e-vkj- ckthdj ,oa Jherh v:.k lcjoky lHkh Mk;jsDVj] ØkFk gSYFk izksMDV fy-] ubZ fnYyh] tks fuekZrk gSa ds fo#) bLrxklk /kkjk 17¼1½&, o 18 lifBr /kkjk 29¼1½ nh bUlsDVhlkbZM ,DV] 1968 ds rgr isk fd;k gSA uewuk eksuksØksVksQkl] tks dhVukkd nok Fkh] eSllZ lh-lh- isLVhlkbZM ,.M QVhZykbZtj] 27&.k] /kku e.Mh] dsljhflagiqj ls 30-03-1990 dks fy;k x;k FkkA 08-05-1990 dks ;g tk¡p ds fy, fHktok;k x;k vkSj 26-06-1990 ds tfj, fokys"k.k fjiksVZ izkIr gqbZ vkSj fel&czk.MsM ik;k x;kA lh-lh- isLVhlkbZM ,.M QVhZykbZtj] 27&,] /kkue.Mh] dsljhflagiqj eSllZ fodkl ,.VjizkbZtst dks uksfVl fn;k x;k ftUgkssaus ;g nok eSllZ ØkFk gsYFk izksMDV~l fy-] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fufeZr gksuk crk;k vkSj muds }kjk lIykbZ dh xbZA bl ij ØkFk gsYFk izkMDV~l fy-] ubZ fnYyh dks Hkh uksfVl fn;k x;k tks bLrxklk ds lkFk isk fd;k x;kA ;g uksfVl fnukad 27-10-1990 dks fn;k x;k vkSj fnukad 13-11-1990 dks bl uksfVl dk tokc fuekZrk dEiuh }kjk fn;k x;k ftlesa crk;k x;k fd lSEiy dh rkjh[k iwoZ esa gh ,Dlik;j gks pqdh gS vkSj nqckjk tk¡p djk;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA mlds ckn 11-01-1991 dks LohÑfr nh tkdj 18-02-1992 dks bLrxklk isk fd;k x;kA bl izdkj 14-07-1990 bl dhVukkd dh ,Dlik;jh dh rkjh[k Fkh vkSj 14-07-1990 ds ckn tc foys"kd dh fjiksVZ 26-09-1990 dks izkIr gks xbZ rks mlds ckn 27-10-1990 dks ,Dlik;jh dh rkjh[k fudyus ds ckn /kkjk 24 bUlsDVhlkbZM ,DV ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr uksfVl fn;k x;k gSA /kkjk 24 bUlsDVhlkbZM ,DV bl izdkj gS%& 24. Report of Insecticide Analyst.-(1) The Insecticide Analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis under Sub-section (6) of Section 22, shall, within a period of thirty days, deliver to the Insecticide Inspector submitting it a signed report in duplicate in the prescribed form. (2) The Insecticide Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and shall retain the other copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the sample. (3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by an Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein, and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken has within twenty-eight days of the receipt of a copy of the report notified in writing the Insecticide Inspector or the Court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. (4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory, where a person has under Sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of the Insecticide Analysts report, the Court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or of the accused, cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the Magistrate under Sub-Section (6) of Section 22 to be sent for test or analysis to the said laboratory, which shall, within a period of thirty days, which shall make the test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or under the authority of , the Director of the Central Insecticides Laboratory the result thereof , and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. (5) Thecost of a test or analysis made by the Central Insecticides Laboratory under Sub-section (4) shall be paid by the complainant or the accused, as the Court shall direct. 7-ejss }kjk /kkjk 24 bUlsDVhlkbZM ,DV dk voyksdu fd;k x;k ,oa tks fofup; ;ksX; vfHkHkk"kd ;kphx.k }kjk isk fd, x, mudk Hkh vknj iwoZd voyksdu fd;k x;kA izhe dksVZ dsls8-1999 ¼8½ lqt 190] ¼ ½] okysfofup; ds iSjk 11 o 12 easfuEufyf [kr fl)kUr fn, x, ga S%& 11. 7-ejss }kjk /kkjk 24 bUlsDVhlkbZM ,DV dk voyksdu fd;k x;k ,oa tks fofup; ;ksX; vfHkHkk"kd ;kphx.k }kjk isk fd, x, mudk Hkh vknj iwoZd voyksdu fd;k x;kA izhe dksVZ dsls8-1999 ¼8½ lqt 190] ¼ ½] okysfofup; ds iSjk 11 o 12 easfuEufyf [kr fl)kUr fn, x, ga S%& 11. Sub-Section (1) of Section 30 which appears to be relevant only prescribes in effect that ignorance would be of no defence but that does not mean that if there are contraventions of other mandatory provisions of Act, the accused have no remedy. The procedure for testing the sample is prescribed and if it is contravened to the prejudice of the accused, he certainly has the right to seek dismissal of the complaint. There cannot be two opinions about that. Then in order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory, it is incumbent on the prosecution to file the complaint expeditiously so that the right of the accused is not lost. In the present case, by the time the respondents were asked to appear before the Court, the expiry date of the insecticide was already over and sending of the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory at that late stage would be of no consequence. This issue is no longer res integra. In State of Punjab vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., this Court in somewhat similar circumstances said that the procedure laid down under Section 24 of the Act deprived the accused to have the sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and adduce evidence of the report so given in his defence. This Court stressed the need to lodge the complaint with utmost despatch so that the accused may opt to avail the statutory defence. The Court held that the accused had been deprived of a valuable right statutorily available to him. On this view of the matter, the Court did not allow the criminal complaint to proceed against the accused. We have cases under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 involving the same question. The Court held that the accused had been deprived of a valuable right statutorily available to him. On this view of the matter, the Court did not allow the criminal complaint to proceed against the accused. We have cases under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 involving the same question. In this connection reference be made to decisions of this Court in State of Haryana vs. Brij Lal Mittal, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ghisa Ram, Chetumal vs. State of M.P. and Calcutta Municipal Corporation vs. Pawan Kumar Saraj, all under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 12. In cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that the respondents in these appeals have been deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory under Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 24 report signed by the Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and shall be conclusive evidence against the accused only if the accused do not, within 28 days of the receipt of the report, notify in writing to the Insecticide Inspector or the Court before which proceedings are pending that they intend to adduce evidence to controvert the report. In the present cases the Insecticide Inspector was notified that the accused intended to adduce evidence to controvert the report. By the time the matter reached the Court, the shelf life of the sample had already expired and no purpose would have been served informing the Court of such an intention. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was, therefore, not conclusive. A valuable right had been conferred on the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and in the circumstances of the case the accused have been deprived of that right, thus, prejudicing them in their defence. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was, therefore, not conclusive. A valuable right had been conferred on the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and in the circumstances of the case the accused have been deprived of that right, thus, prejudicing them in their defence. 9-blh izdkj bl U;k;ky; }kjk 2000 ¼1½ ,Q-,-lh-86] ¼;ks½] okys izdj.k esa Hkh ;gh fl)kUr fn;k gS fd vfHk; Dr dks h; tk¡p izxkkyk l s lSEiy dh tk¡p djkus dk /kkjk 24¼4½ ds rgr dkuwuh vf /kdkj gS vkSj ;fn vf rks vfHk;Dr ds dsl ij foijhr vlj iM+rk gS vkSj bl vk/kkj ij /kkjk 482 na-iz-la- ds rgr vfHk;Dr qZds fo#) tks dk;okgh dh xbZ Fkh mls vikLr dh xbZ FkhA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; okys izdj.k esa tks rF; Fks mlesa Hkh ;g fLFkfr Li"V Fkh fd ml izdj.k eas05-08-1994 dks dhVukkd fujh{kd }kjk fodkl cht Hk.Mkj ds ekfyd lq[kchj flaikl ds uewus fy, x, FksA ,d uewuk lq[kchj flag ls eksuksØksVksg dks ud QkjesM izk- fy-ds izfn;k x;k vkSj ml uewus dks tk¡p ds fy, fHktok;k x;kA eSllZ ; fqdj.k esa fuekZj gfjflaa foØ; vf /kdkjh FkkA DokfyVh d.Vªksy yscksjsVjh us crk;k fd tks uewuk rk Fks vkSg oekZ mlesHkstk x;k og fel&czwk.MsM gSA bl ij uksfVl eSllZ fodkl cht Hk.Mkj dks 30-09-1994 o ;fud QkesZV qdks fHktok, x,] ftlds 08-10-1994 dks tokc ; fud QkjesM }kjk fHktok;k x;kA blds ckotwn Hkh Zw24-06-1995 dks mlds fo#) dk;okgh vkjEHk dh xbZA ;fud QkjesM us vius tokc easLi"V crk;k Fkk VZ ds fo#) viuh lk{; nsuk pkgrs gSfd og fjiksaA exj bUlisDVj us ;g tokc fn;k fd U;k;ky; gh wbl lEcU/k esa mfpr vknsk ns ldrk gSA bl ij ;fud QkjesM }kjk ;g rdZ mBk, x, fd tc rd U;k;ky; esa oks mifLFkr gq, mlds iwoZ gh uewus dh rkjh[k fudy pqdh Fkh] vr% mUgsa cpko ds dherh volj lekIr gqvk tks /kkjk 24 bUlsDVhlkbZM ,DV ds rgr mUgsa miyC/k Fkk vkSj dsl izqhT; fMl gqvk gSA qmijksDr rF;kas ds vk/kkj ij ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g Li"V ekuk fd vfHk;Dr dk /kkjk 24¼4½ ds rgr uewus dh iqu% tk¡p djkus dk dkuwuh vf /kdkj gS vkSj ;fn /kkjk 24 ds vf /kdkjksa dh vogsyuk gksrh gS] , lsizsdj.k esa ;g vkijkf /kd izdj.k vfHk; qDr ds fo#) ugha pyk;k tk ldrkA 10-bl izdkj ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; o bl U;k;ky; ds mijksDr fofup;kas ds voyksdu ds ckn bl izdj.k ds rF;] tSlkfd Åij nsxkkyk dh fjiksVZ jsdMZ ij [ks x, gSa] Li"V gS fd dhVukkd tk¡p iz;ksesa izsR;d O;fDr vijk/k ds fy, ftEesnkj gS] fdl O;fDr }kjk lSEiy fy;k x;k] dhVukkd D;k Fkk] j fdl izdkj bls fel&czj dEiuh }kjk tks tokc ,usysfll dh D;k fjiksVZ vkbZ vkSk.MsM ekuk x;k vkSfn;k x;k ml tokc dks D;ksa ugha Lohdkj fd;k x;k] tcfd lSEiy dh rkjh[k iwoZ esa gh fudy pqdh Fkha bl izdkj LohÑfr vknsk esa reke esVhfj;y rF;kas dk gokyk ugha vk;k gS vkSj ;g ek= vkSipkfjdrk qZek= LohÑfr nsus dh ikbZ tkrh gSA bl vk/kkj ij Hkh mudk rdZ jgk fd vfHk;Drx.k ds fo#) dk;okgh bl vk/kkj ij Hkh lekIr dh tkosA mUgksaus vius rdZ leFkZu easbl U;k;ky; ds fofup;] 2001 ¼1½ ,Q-,-lh- 86 ¼ ½] ,oa 1996 ¼2½ ,Q , lh 62 ¼ std us rdZ s LohÑfr nh xbZ og reke dkxtkr dk s ns[kus ds ckn vkSj fopkj djus ds ckn gh tkjh dh xbZ gS] blesa dksbZ dkuwuh deh ugha ekuh tk ldrhA 14-eSaus nksuksa i{kksa ds rdkasZ ij fopkj fd;kA bu U;k;ky; }kjk 2000 ¼1½ ,Q-,-lh-86] ] esa bUgha rdksZ ds vk/kkj ij iSjk 7 o 8 easfuEufyf [kr fl)kUr fn;k gS%& 13-bldX; tu vfHk;ks "7. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Prosecution sanction is not legal and valid 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 Chemicals 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 Judgment s of Punjab & 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, 1997 (2) PFA Cases page 226, and in Manjit Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, 1993 (2) FAC 67, 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 & Anr. vs. The State of Punjab, 1994 (1) PFA Cases page 52, the sanction did not contain the name of the Insecticide Inspector who took the sample nor did it mention the date on which the sample was taken and how the same was found to be misbranded. It was held that the person who granted sanction was not valid. In Hanuman Sharma vs. State of Punjab, 1992 (1) PFA Cases page 170, it was held that it was necessary that the date on which sample was allegedly taken should be mentioned in the sanction. 8. I have carefully gone through the sanction of this case. The sanction does not take care of all these points. In Hanuman Sharma vs. State of Punjab, 1992 (1) PFA Cases page 170, it was held that it was necessary that the date on which sample was allegedly taken should be mentioned in the sanction. 8. I have carefully gone through the sanction of this case. The sanction does not take care of all these points. It simply mentions names of eight accused persons and does not mention even the name of the Insecticide Inspector who had taken the sample of the insecticide and on what date. In view of the above said law this sanction cannot be held to be valid. Therefore, the prosecution on the basis of this sanction was bad according to law and has to be quashed". 15-blh izdkj ¼mijksDr½] ds iSjk 10 o 11 eas that those neither contain the facts constituting offence nor grounds of satisfaction nor those show that all the relevant facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and that satisfaction was arrived at by the authority for according sanction for prosecution against the petitioner. 11. InMohd. Iqbal Ahmed vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 677 , legality and validity of sanction for prosecution under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was involved. The Apex Court held that it was incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been accorded by the sanctioning authority after it was satisfied that the case for sanction had been made out constituting offence. It was observed that this could be done in two ways either by producing the original sanction which itself contained the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction or by adducing evidence aliunde to show that all relevant facts were place before the Sanctioning Authority and that such a prosecution sanction was not given mechanically. In that case, the prosecution sanction was found to be lacking all those ingredients and the same was held to be invalid."