V.K.JHANJI,J - (1.) ]This judgment will dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 8584-M of 1992.
(2.) PETITION has been filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint, Annexure P-1 and the consequent proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Insecticides Rules, 1971. In brief, the facts are that on 11.10.1989 Kuldeep Singh, Inspector Insecticides, Faridkot, visited the shop of M/s. Bharat Traders, Faridkot and took sample of Aldrin 30% EC out of stock of 6 litres in packing of 250 ml. each. Three containers and three Form No. XII were packed in three separate cloth bags. One sample and one Form No. XII was handed over to the dealer at the spot. One sample was sent to the Director, Plant Protection Guarantee and Storage NH-IV, Faridabad. Sample was analysed in the Laboratory on 5.12.1989 and it was opined as under :- "The sample does not conform to the relevant IS specifications with respect to the active ingredient content requirement and is therefore misbranded." The sample was, therefore, not in conformity with IS specifications with respect to its per centage active ingredient and thus the dealer and the manufacturer had committed offence by selling, manufacturing and stocking the insecticides not according to prescribed standard under the licence granted to them.
(3.) PRESENT complaint, Annexure P-1 has been filed against the petitioners in respect of aforesaid offences for quashing the complaint on the ground that before launching prosecution, it was necessary to obtain legal sanction from the State Government under Section 31 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short the Act). According to the petitioner, no valid sanction has been granted for prosecution of the petitioner. 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 the petitioner against whom complaint has been filed, has not been mentioned in the sanction. It has further been alleged that in the entire complaint, there is neither any allegation nor any material to show that petitioners No. 2 and 3 were charged or responsible to the Company at the relevant time.;