Judgment Nirmaljit Kaur, J. 1. This is a person under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint dated 31.01.2006 in the Court of JMIC, Amritsar under Sections 3(k), 17, 18 and 33 of the Insecticide Act 1968 and punishable under Section 29 of Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rules 27(5) of Insecticide Rules, 1971 and all subsequent proceedings arising thereform. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Managing Director of M/s. Insecticide India Limited, the manufacturing concern in the business of pesticides, having its head Office at Delhi. The complaint, Kuldeep Singh- Insecticide Inspector, Tarsikka inspected the premises of M/s. Modern Kheti Store Railway Road, Tehsil Baba Bakala on 20.12.2004 and drew the sample of isopoturon 75% wp brand name Milron. One part of the sample was sent for its analysis to the Senior Analyst Insecticide, Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana on 29.12.2004 and after its analysis, it was found misbranded. Hence, the present complaint was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar on 31.01.2006. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the provisions of Section 31 of the Insecticide Act, 1968, before launching the prosecution, the sanction has to be obtained against the person, against whom prosecution has been launched. In the present case, prosecution has been launched against the petitioner through company but no sanction has been obtained against the petitioner, which is a mandatory provision of the law, this fact is evident from the perusal of the sanction order obtained by the prosecution from the competent authority before launching the prosecution. No prosecution has been launched against the petitioner by his name but the complaint has been filed against M/s. Insecticide India Limited through the Managing Director. Reply has been filed. Para 3 of the said reply reads as under :- "3. That contents of para No. 3 are admitted to the extent that in the sanction under Section 31(1) of Insecticide Act 1968 is required to be obtained before the institution of the case/complaint and the remaining content of the para are denied being incorrect and wrong. Para 3 of the said reply reads as under :- "3. That contents of para No. 3 are admitted to the extent that in the sanction under Section 31(1) of Insecticide Act 1968 is required to be obtained before the institution of the case/complaint and the remaining content of the para are denied being incorrect and wrong. The petitioner has not been sued in the personal capacity in the present case rather the accused No. 3 is the firm and the petitioner is the Managing Director of this firm and as such he is also the responsible person for the conduct of the business of the said firm. Perusal of the contents of sanction order reveals that sanction has also been granted against accused No. 3 i.e. M/s. Insecticide India Limited, New Delhi. However, inadvertently name of Sh. B.S. Rana has been mentioned in the sanction order." Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Section 31(1) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 reads as under :- "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." It is, therefore, evident that the consent/sanction is necessary before launching the prosecution. The operative part of the Order passed by the appropriate authority, in the present case, reads as under :- I, Dr. Gurdev Singh Gill, Joint Director, Agriculture (Plant Protection), Punjab give my consent to Kuldeep Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Tarsikka (Amritsar) to launch the prosecution under Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules 1971 against the following persons in the Court of law :- 1. M/s. Modern Kheti Store, Railway Road, Tangra Amritsar through Sh. Kashmir Singh, Proprietor. 2. Sh. Kashmir Singh son of Sh. Gurnam Singh, Prop. M/s. Modern kheti Store, Railway Road, Tangra. 3. M/s. Insecticide India Limited, New Delhi through Sh. B.S. Rana responsible person. 4. Sh. B.S. Rana son of Sh. Balbir Singh responsible person and Manager Quality and Production of M/s. Insecticide India Limited, Samba, District Jammu (J&K)." 4. It is, therefore, an admitted position that no sanction was taken qua the present petitioner. It is not denied that Sh. 3. M/s. Insecticide India Limited, New Delhi through Sh. B.S. Rana responsible person. 4. Sh. B.S. Rana son of Sh. Balbir Singh responsible person and Manager Quality and Production of M/s. Insecticide India Limited, Samba, District Jammu (J&K)." 4. It is, therefore, an admitted position that no sanction was taken qua the present petitioner. It is not denied that Sh. B.S. Rana has submitted his affidavit dated 01.06.2004 admitting that he was incharge and responsible person for the conduct of business of the said firm under Section 33 of the Insecticides India Limited, pertaining to Quality Control of Insecticides manufactured by M/s. Insecticides India Limited. He has also admitted that he was working as Manager Quality Control and Production at M/s. Insecticides India Limited SIDCO, Industrial Growth Center, Samba, District Jammu. Sh. B.S. Rana is already arrayed as an accused and sanction has already been obtained qua him. 5. It is well settled proposition of law that if the name of any person is not given in the sanction qua the particular person is not valid. This Court, in the case of S.C. Sharma v. State of Punjab reported as 1990(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 702 : 1990(1) P.L.R. 644 quashed the proceedings even when the sanction was obtained after the launching of the prosecution. In the present case, no sanction has been taken qua the present petitioner. 6. In the case of K.G. Papu v. State of Punjab reported as 1996 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal), 795, it was held that the sanction granted to prosecute partnership firm would not cover the prosecution of the partners constituting that firm. Para 8 of the said judgment reads as under :- "8. Section 31 of the Act relates to the taking of cognizance and trial of offences under the Act. Sub-Section(1) thereof provides as under :- "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." These provisions mandate that no prosecution for an offence under the Act can be instituted except by or with the written consent of the State Government or a person authorized in his behalf by the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government. In other words, the sanction of the State Government or authorised officer is sine qua non for launching prosecution against any individual or Corporation. Reading this provision alongwith Section 33 of the Act, reproduced above, it becomes clear that if prosecution is to be launched against the company or the person in charge of the company or an officer of the company, sanction to prosecute is the condition precedent for each of them. If the partnership firm and it partners are to be prosecuted for an offence under the Act, sanction to prosecute is required in respect of the partnership firm as well as the partners. A sanction granted to prosecute a partnership firm would not cover the prosecution of the partners constituting that firm. The obvious reason is that the partnership firm within the ambit of term company as contained in Section 33 can be prosecuted and punished alone without prosecuting partners constituting that firm. Therefrom when the partners of such a firm are also to be prosecuted alongwith the firm, Section 31(1) mandates sanction to prosecute against its partners also." 7 Similar was the law laid down in the case of Shashank Bhargava v. State of Punjab reported as 2005(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 53, and in the case of Sant Lal Surekha v. State of Punjab reported as 2009(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 981, wherein, it was held that in case, no permission has been obtained against the individual employee or the partner as the case would be, then he cannot be prosecuted. 8. In this case, the relevant facts have not been disputed. The sanction was granted to prosecute the Company through its responsible person. The complaint has been filed by impleading the Company, as well as, the other responsible persons. Sh. B.S. Rana has given affidavit that he was responsible for all the acts and omissions of the said firm. Sanction has been obtained qua B.S. Rana along with others. He is already one of the accused. No sanction has been obtained qua the present petitioner. The case of the petitioner squarely covered by the aforesaid decision rendered by this Court, in which, on similar facts, the complaint was quashed. 9. Sanction has been obtained qua B.S. Rana along with others. He is already one of the accused. No sanction has been obtained qua the present petitioner. The case of the petitioner squarely covered by the aforesaid decision rendered by this Court, in which, on similar facts, the complaint was quashed. 9. In view of the above admitted position and in view of the lack of sanction, the complaint dated 31.01.2006 in the Court of JMIC, Amritsar under Sections 3(k), 17, 18 and 33 of the Insecticide Act 1968 and punishable under Section 29 of Insecticide act, 1968 read with Rules 27(5) of Insecticides Rules, 1971 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom only qua the present petitioner are quashed.