Sabina, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaint dated 18.8.1993 (Annexure P -2) under Section 3(k)(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (the Act for short) read with Section 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
(2.) IN the present case, the complaint in question was filed against the petitioner and three others. The petitioner and other accused filed CRM No. 12953 -M of 1994 seeking quashing of the complaint in question. On 7.9.2001, the following order was passed by this Court in the said case: - - The primary grievance of the petitioners is that the sanction order (Annexure P -6) given by the Additional Director Agriculture under Section 31(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 was mechanically made and did not display any application of mind. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Narinder Singh v. M/s. Chemico Pesticide Combines,, 1999(2) RCR (Cri.) 311. No reply has been filed by the respondents in response to the prayer of quashing of the complaint initiated on the basis of the said sanction. Keeping in view the judgment cited by the learned counsel, the sanction order (Annexure P -6) is quashed with liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh sanction order after giving adequate reasons. The parties to appear before the trial Court on October 19, 2001. It is, however, clarified that the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all pleas taken in the present petition before the trial Court, should another complaint by filed. Thereafter, the accused moved an application before the trial Court for their discharge as they had been ordered to be summoned vide order dated 17.8.1993 (Annexure P -3) to face the trial under Section 29(1) of the Act. Vide order dated 18.5.2004, (Annexure P -4), the trial Court allowed the application qua accused Nos. 1 to 3 and they were ordered to be discharged. However, qua the present petitioner, the trial Court held as under: - - Now remains the manufacturer only to face trial. Originally responsible person was Hari Chand but Hari Chand left the service of manufacturing company around 2001 and in his place company nominated Madan Gupta. Madan Gupta joined the company in 2001 and sample was taken in 24.7.1992. Hence, for the quality of sample Madan Gupta cannot be responsible. He was not incharge and responsible for the conduct of company before 24.7.1992 nor the notice mandatory as per law was given to him nor sanction was obtained against him. Principal certificate on the file is regarding Hari Chand. Notice was also given to Hari Chand. Sanction was also obtained against Hari Chand, hence the court cannot prosecute Madan Gupta and only Hari Chand is liable to be prosecuted. In these circumstances, Madan Gupta is also ordered to be discharged.
(3.) THE trial Court erred in allowing the proceedings to continue against the present petitioner as the sanction order dated 2.2.1993 had been quashed by this Court vide order dated 7.9.2001 in CRM -M No. 12953 of 1994. Admittedly, no fresh sanction order has been passed by the competent authority except the order dated 2.2.1993, which already stood quashed by this Court. Since there was no sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, the application moved by the petitioner qua his discharge was also liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.5.2004 (Annexure P -4) is set aside. Consequently, the application moved by the petitioner seeking his discharge is allowed.;