V.K.JHANJI,J - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 3959-M of 1992.
(2.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of complaint, Annexure P-1 under Section 3(k) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with rule 27(5) of Insecticides Rules, 1971 (for short the rules) pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda. In brief the facts are that petitioner No. 1 is company whereas petitioner No. 2 is Director. The Company deals in formulating various insecticides and supply through its distributors and dealer. On 9.9.1989, Surjit Singh, Insecticides Inspector, Bhucho Mandi, District Bhatinda visited the shop of dealer M/s. Ram Parshad Som Nath, Bhucho Mandi and selected 3 tins of Vanish P-20 (Fenvalrate 20% E.C.) manufactured by petitioner No. 1. One sealed sample was sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad for analysis and the report of the Analyst disclosed that the sample did not conform to its I.S.I. specification in respect of its percentage of active ingredient. Thus the product was found misbranded under Section 3(k) of the Act.
(3.) COMPLAINT , Annexure P-1 has been filed against the Company and petitioner No. 2 has been arrayed in his capacity as a Director, which supplied material to M/s. Ram Parshad Som Nath. The complaint and the subsequent proceedings have been sought to be quashed on the ground that before launching prosecution. It was necessary to obtain legal sanction from the State Government under Section 31 of the Act. According to the petitioners, no valid sanction has been granted for prosecution of the petitioners. The Sanctioning Authority did not apply its mind before granting sanction to launch prosecution and gave the sanction on a cyclostyled proforma. No details of the facts regarding the same being misbranded were given. Even the name of petitioner No. 2 against whom complaint has been filed, has not been mentioned in the complaint.;