Nisha Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS Misc. Petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dt. 12.02.2004 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Original Cr. Case No. 416/2004 whereby cognizance has been taken against the present petitioners for the offence under Sec. 29(1)(a)(i) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The relevant facts of the case are that Insecticide Inspector and Assistant Director, Agriculture (QC) H.Q., Jaipur filed a complaint against the present petitioners and others which is under consideration before the Court below. The only contention of the present petitioners is that required sanction is not valid and legal and has been awarded without due application of mind, hence the proceedings should be quashed in toto. Per contra, the contention of the Public prosecutor is that there is no infirmity in the sanction awarded.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order. The contention of the present petitioners is that Annex.3 prosecution sanction has been awarded mechanically without application of mind as it does not contain the facts constituting the offence and nor the grounds for the satisfaction of the Authorities and reliance has been placed on B.A.S.F. India Ltd. & Ors. (M/s.) v. State of Raj. & Ors., : RLW 2004 (2) Raj. 1225 where the sanction awarded was identical as to Annex.3 and Court has held as under: "It clearly appears that the sanction has been accorded for prosecution by the Authority mechanically without application of mind. The prosecution on such a sanction is held to be illegal by various decision of this Court. Reference be made to M/s. Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Raj.,, 1996 (2) WLC 690. Besides this, there is nothing to show as to how the petitioners were responsible for conduct of business. They have also been deprived of their right to get the sample analyzed by the Central Insecticide Laboratory under Sec. 24 of the Act. It is not necessary to examine these contentions in detail, as the petition deserves to be succeeded on first ground alone." Further reliance has been placed on Anu Products Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Raj., : 2000 (2) WLN 480 wherein it was held: "The sanction admittedly does not name the Inspector who took the sample from the date on which the sample was taken. It does not mention the facts constituting the grounds for satisfaction of the Sanctioning Authority. It appears that the sanction has been granted mechanically." Reliance has also been placed on S.N. Chemicals (M/s.) v. State of Raj. & Ors.,, 2000 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 22.
(3.) IN view of the above, the present case is also identical as referred to supra and clearly shows that the sanction has been awarded in a mechanical manner without application of mind. It does not contain even facts of the case which constitute the offence or the ingredients of offence nor any ground for the satisfaction of the Authority. In view of the above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dt. 12.02.2004 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Original Cr. Case No. 416/2004 is quashed qua the petitioners.;