- (1.) 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.
(2.) 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(Cri) 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(Cri) 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(Cri) 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. 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."
(3.) Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.;