Raghbir Chand vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J. (Oral)

Shri Kuldip Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police has filed affidavit on behalf of the respondentState.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to quashment of proceedings pending before the Special Judge, Patiala, arising out of F.I.R. No. 165 dated 10.12.1988 registered at Police Station, Samana, under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition which emerge from the first information report lodged on the basis of the written complaint made by Inder Pal Singh, Plant Protection Inspector, Samana, are that on the information given to him by Jaswant Singh and Harpal Singh, he along with Darshan Singh Compost Inspector as well as the two aforesaid informants went to Halwai Bazar, Samana where a car was parked. He checked the car and its driver Kulwinder Singh along with his companions Pawan Kumar and Madan Lal was present near that car. On search of the said car 75 packets of arelon each weighing 500 grams with manufacturing date November, 1987 and expiry date November, 1989 were recovered. All the packets bore the same batch number. The aforesaid three persons on enquiry admitted that they had no bill or licence to keep those insecticides in their possession. Out of these packets, three packets of 500 grams each were separated for sample and these were duly sealed in card board boxes and remaining packets were duly sealed in a gunny bag and taken into possession. Request was made in the said report to register a case under the provisions of the Act as well as under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against Kulwinder Singh, Pawan Kumar and Madan Lal aforesaid.

These facts are not disputed by the State. However, in para No. 2 of its reply, it is mentioned that even though name of the present petitioner does not figure in the first information report, during investigation of the case on the disclosure; statement said to have been made by Pawan Kumar accused said at the residential premises of the petitioner at Nabha was conducted and from there one machine used for pressing belt one machine used for extracting, one electric machine used for paking plastic bags, bearing mark Arolen 75% W.P. were recovered. Some stickers were also got recovered by the petitioner.

The learned Counsel for the parties were heard.

On behalf of the petitioner, it was mainly contended that no sanction for instituting criminal proceedings as contemplated under Section 31 of the Act was obtained by the prosecution against the petitioner from the State Government or other competent authority in this behalf, and, as such proceedings instituted against the petitioner under the Act are liable to be quashed. For the sake of convenience Section 31 of the Act is reproduced as follows :

"31. Cognizance and trial of offences :

(1) No prosecution for an offences under this Act shall be instituted except by or with the written consent of, the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government;

(2) No Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act."

Dealing with this, aspect of the case, it was observed by H.S. Brar, J. in J.P. Somaiya Company Secretary v. Charan Singh Bhullar, Insecticides Inspector and another, 1992(2) Recent Criminal Reports 229 as under :

"Subsection (1) of Section 31 of the Act clearly mandates that no prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by or with the written consent of the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government. Written consent/sanction under Section 31(1) of the Act has been annexed as Annexure P/3 with the petition. A reading of consent/sanction Annexure P/3 reveals that the consent/sanction is in respect of Prosecution against Kishari Lal Maya and sons, Fazilka (including all partners and M/s. National Organic Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Bombay) and not against Messrs Gharda Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. or the petitioner. Apparently, the mandatory provisions as contained in Section 31(1) of the Act has not been complied with by the respondent, as no written consent sanction of the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government has been taken in order to prosecute the petitioner or Messrs Gharda Chemicals Pvtt. Ltd. The Learned Assistant Advocate General has not been able to shows me that sanction as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act to prosecute the petitioner was taken."

In the instant case, admittedly no sanction for institution of prosecution under the Act was obtained by the Insecticide Inspector either from the State or from other competent authority as contemplated under Section 31(1) of the Act. Mere fact that the sanction for prosecution of other coaccused of the petitioner has been obtained by the Insecticide Inspector would hardly be of any consequence as far as institution or continuation of criminal proceedings under the Act against the present petitioner are concerned. As such institution or continuation of prosecution proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Act, without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 31(1) of the Act would account to abuse of the process of the Court and the same are hereby quashed. However, the respondents may prosecute the petitioner after taking valid consent according to law if such course is legally permissible. This petition is accordingly allowed, to the extent indicated above.