Kissan Trading Co. vs State of Punjab

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

Petitioner''s counsel contended that the complaint and the consequent proceedings are liable to be quashed on two counts, firstly, the sanction/consent order is not a valid sanction in the eyes of law, secondly the complaint was filed after the expiry of shelf life of the insecticide in question.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Distributor of insecticide B.H.C. (Benzene Hexa Chloride) 50% W.P. M/s. Thind Kheti Store, is a dealer and M/s. Northern Minerals Limited, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, are the manufacturers of this insecticide. On 27.1.1991, sample of this insecticide was drawn by Harpal Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Nakodar from the shop of M/s. Thind Kheti Store, Village Mehtpur. The month of manufacture of this insecticide was July, 1990 and the expiry dated was June, 1992. This sample was sent to Regional Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh for analysis. Analyst gave his report (Annexure P2) on 3.4.1991 and found the sample misbranded. On 12.4.1991 show cause notice (Annexure P3) was issued to M/s. Northern Minerals Limited stating therein that such a sample was taken and on analysis it was found misbranded. The manufacturers sent its reply on 10.5.1991 (Annexure P4) wherein a request was made for getting another sample re analysed by Central Insecticides Laboratory. No other sample was sent for reanalysis. Consent for prosecution was obtained on 26.7.1991 and on 8th April, 1993 complaint was filed against the petitioner as well.

This first contention is that the complaint was filed after the expiry of the shelf life of the questioned insecticide. Hence the petitioner had no opportunity to make a prayer for reanalysis of the second sample. In the reply, it is contended that copy of the Analyst''s report was not sent to the petitioner, but it was sent to the manufacturer as well as to dealer of the insecticide. Both of them never made any prayer for getting the other sample reanalysed. Hence, when they have not availed this option given to them under Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, even if the complaint is filed after the expiry date of shelf life of the insecticide, it cannot be held that the petitioner is deprived of his aforesaid right.

According to the petitioner, the manufacturer sent a reply (Annexure P4) wherein such a prayer was made. The respondent has not denied the receipt of this letter, but has simply replied that the manufacturer has not approached for retesting of the sample and not made such a request before the competent authority and lastly the sample was analysed by the Regional Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh which is a unit of the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad.

Admittedly, another sample was sent for retesting. Even if the petitioner has not made such a prayer, one such prayer was made by the manufacturer, the complainant was dutybound to get the second sample re analysed as this prayer was made on 10.5.1991 and the expiry date of the shelf life of the insecticide was June, 1992. Obviously, the petitioner was deprived of his valuable right under section 24 of the aforesaid Act to get the second sample reanalysed because the complaint itself was filed on 9.4.1993 and the petitioner was summoned by the Court for 18.8.1993 that is after the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide. Even if the sample was analysed by Regional Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh which is a unit of the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad, but under section 24 of the Act accused has such a right to get second sample reanalysed by Central Insecticide Laboratory which cannot be denied to him only on the count that this Chandigarh Laboratory is a unit of Central Insecticide Laboratory. Hence on this ground, the complaint and the consequent proceedings are liable to be quashed.

The second contention is that the consent/sanction order (Annexure P5) does not show the application of mind. In this sanction order, it is not mentioned as to who took the sample, from whom this sample was taken, what was the report of the Analyst and how the sample was found misbranded.

From a plain perusal of the sanction order (Annexure P5) it appears that only this much is written that record was placed before the sanctioning authority. He being satisfied that an offence under the Act has been committed by M/s Thind Kheti Store, Mehatpur, dealer and others, he exercising the powers under Section 31(1) of the Act gave consent/sanction to Insecticides Inspector to initiate proceedings for the prosecution of the dealer, distributor and the manufacturer named therein.

These lacunas show nonapplication of mind by the concerned authority who accorded the sanction. Provisions regarding grant of sanction are mandatory in nature, it is not a mere formality. Similar question arose in M/s Jot Ram Dharam Chand Thappa v. State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector, Barnala, 1993(2) Recent CR 456 , Sadhu Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993(2) Recent CR 593 and M/s Hindustan Pulverising Mills v. State of Haryana, 1992(2) Recent CR 313 , wherein also sanction order was held invalid on the basis of above lacunas.

I find that the sanction order, Annexure P5 is not a valid sanction order, which is the basis of the complaint, the complaint is liable to be quashed on this court as well.

On the basis of above findings, accepting this petition in limine, the complaint and the consequent proceedings are hereby quashed.