HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will also dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 3907-M of 1993. U.B. Bakana and another v. State of Punjab.
(2.) ON 1.6.1991 Shri Tirlochan Singh, Insecticide Inspector, inspected the premises of M/s Rayya Kheti Store and took a sample of Butachlor 50% E.C. branch "Narmadachlor' manufactured by M/s Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Ltd. Gujarat. The sample was sealed into three glass bottles each weighing three hundred miliitres and one sealed sample was sent to the Analyst, Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh for analysis. The Analyst opined that the sample sent was misbranded since it contained only 40.1% E.C. of Butachlor as against the guaranteed percentage of 50% E.C. as labelled on the container and, thus, it was not in conformity with the relevant I.S.I specifications with respect to its percentage of active ingredient contents. After obtaining sanction from the competent authority the Insecticide Inspector filed a complaint against the petitioners for their trial for the offences under Sections 3(k)(i) 13, 17, 18 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1963 (the Act for short) read with Rule 10 of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 as also under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. The petitioners both the petitions under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code prayed for quashing of the complaint. The petitioners alleged that the Insecticide Inspector did not take the sample as prescribed by the rules and no precaution was taken to protect the sample. The sample was seized from a sealed container and the petitioners i.e. Manjit Singh and Gurbax Rai who were merely dealers should not have been prosecuted as they were protected under Sub Section (3) of Section 30 of the Act. It was further pleaded that before launching prosecution it was mandatory to obtain sanction and the sanctioning authority was required to apply his mind before granting sanction, but sanction in this case was granted on a cyclostyled proforma without giving any particulars of the facts leading to the filing of the case. The sanctioning authority did not satisfy himself whether any offence was made or not and the sanction was not valid.
(3.) IN the return filed by the respondent it was alleged that M/s Rayya Kheti Store, Rayya was granted a licence to sell stock or exhibit for sale the insecticide which was being manufactured by M/s Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Company Limited and Manjit Singh was the sole proprietor of this firm while Gurbax Rai petitioner No. 2 was the salesman. At the time of inspection the firm was found selling misbranded butachlor manufactured by M/s Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Company. The sample was seized after observing the prescribed proscribed procedure. The petitioners were not protected under Section 30(3) of the Act. Regarding sanction it was alleged that the sanctioning authority was provided with full details of the case by Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar and sanction was granted after going through the record and it was a valid sanction.;