Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1107 (PNJ)

Amar Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab

2012-08-27

SABINA

body2012
JUDGMENT Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 seeking quashing of the impugned complaint under Insecticide Act, 1968 (for short `the Act') read with Insecticide Rules, 1971 (Annexure P1) and summoning order dated 26.11.1999 (Annexure P2) alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned complaint and the summoning order were totally contrary to the provisions of law. Petitioner could not be summoned to face the trial in his individual capacity. Learned counsel has further submitted that no specific and individual sanction of the petitioner had been obtained from the appropriate authority as required under Section 31 of the Act. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Sant Lal Surekha vs. State of Punjab 2009(4) RCR(Criminal) 981 wherein it was held as under:-“If the order Annexure P3 granting sanction is to be seen then it merely shows that sanction was granted to prosecute M/s Thakur Chemicals, New Delhi (Manufacturer) through its responsible person Sh. Sant Lal. It is thus not a clear cut compliance of Section 31 of the Act. The sanction is obviously for prosecution of the company and not the petitioner. In Shashank Bhargava v. State of Punjab and another, 2005(3) RCR(Criminal) 53, this court in similar circumstances has quashed the proceedings by holding that such like sanction is merely for the prosecution of the company and not for the individual. Similarly, in Shashank Bhargava and another v. The State of Punjab and another 2000(2) RCC 454 this Court held that since there is no sanction to prosecute the petitioner who is an individual, the right of a company to appoint a representative under Section 305(2) Cr.P.C. stood violated. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on Shashank Bhargava vs. State of Punjab and another 2005(3)RCR (Criminal) 53 wherein it was held as under:- “In this case, the relevant facts mentioned above have not been disputed by the counsel for the respondents. The sanction was granted to prosecute the company through its responsible person i.e. the petitioners. The complaint has also been filed by impleading the manufacturing company as an accused through the petitioners. No individual sanction to prosecute the petitioners has been granted by the competent authority after coming to the conclusion that they were the persons responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. The complaint has also been filed by impleading the manufacturing company as an accused through the petitioners. No individual sanction to prosecute the petitioners has been granted by the competent authority after coming to the conclusion that they were the persons responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. In the complaint, the petitioners have not been impleaded as an accused through them. There is no averment that the petitioners in their individual capacity were the persons responsible for the conduct of the business of the manufacturing company. In view of these admitted facts, in my opinion, the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court in which on similar facts the complaints were quashed.” Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. In the present case, the case of the petitioner is covered by the decisions of this Court in Sant Lal Surekha's case (supra) and Shasank Bhargava's case (supra). In the present case also, the sanction was granted to the prosecute the Company vide Annexure P3 through C.M.Khajuria, Production Manager and petitioner- Amir Singh Sidhu, Area Sales Manager. The complaint has also been filed against the Company as accused through petitioner-Amir Singh Sidhu and his co-accused-C.M.Khajuria. The complaint has not been filed against the petitioner in his individual capacity nor any sanction was accorded in this regard. Since no individual sanction to prosecute the petitioner had been granted by the competent authority, after coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for the conduct of the business, the complaint qua the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused in his individual capacity. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned complaint dated 26.11.1999 under Sections 3(K)(i),17,18,29 and 33 of the Act (Annexure P1) along with all consequential proceedings including summoning order dated 26.11.1999 qua the petitioner are quashed.