S.N.Chemical Industries vs State of Punjab

Sat Pal, J. (Oral)

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ''the Code'') read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the complaint dated 6th November, 1992 (copy of which is Annexure P.1/1).

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the State through Insecticide Inspector, Jhabhal, District Amritsar filed a complaint against the five accused, and accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the complaint are petitioners 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively in this case. The said complaint was filed under Section 3(k)(1), 13, 17, 18 and 22 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (in short ''the Act'') and rule 10 of the Insecticide Rules and under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Sood, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the complaint is not maintainable against the petitioners inasmuch as a notice under Section 24(3) of the Act was not served on the petitioners. He submits that in the absence of service of this notice the petitioners were deprived of their valuable right to get the sample examined from another analyst. In support of this submission he placed reliance on two judgments of this Court M/s Avid Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of Punjab, 1994(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 46 and M/s United Pesticides and another v. State of Punjab and others, 1992(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 354.

The learned counsel further drew my attention to the sanction (copy of which is annexure P.3/1) and submitted that the competent authority had accorded sanction to prosecute only petitioner No. 1 namely M/s S.N. Chemical Industries and no sanction was accorded for prosecuting petitioners 2, 3 and 4. He, therefore, contends that the complaint is not maintainable against petitioners 2, 3 and 4. In support of this contention he placed reliance on judgment of this Court in the case of M/s United Presticides and another (supra).

Mr. Garg, learned AAG has drawn my attention to para No. II(ii)(a) of the writtenstatement filed on behalf of the State wherein it has been stated that the Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar, sent registered letter No. ENF 3511 dated 17th March, 1993 addressed to M/s S.N. Chemical Industries, B25, Govt. Industrial Estate, Mehrouli Road, Gurgaon, enclosing analysis report but the same was returned back with the remarks that the factory has been closed. He, therefore, contends that the notice is deemed to have been served and this point cannot be raised in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Shri Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. Shri S. Bangarappa and others, Judgements Today 1995(4) SC 124. The learned counsel further submits that the point that sanction was not issued against petitioners 2, 3 and 4 has not been taken in the petition.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

As regards the first point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that notice under Section 24(3) of the Act was not served is a question of disputed facts and as such this point cannot be urged in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. As held by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, 1988(4) SCC 655, the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry where the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate when the evidence comes before him. This observation of the Supreme Court was approved by the Supreme Court in its recent judgment in the case of Shri Ganesh Narayan Hegde''s case (supra).

Section 31 of the Act stipulates that no prosecution for offence under the 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. This means that the petitioners 2, 3 and 4 could be prosecuted only in case competent authority had authorised the complainant to file the complaint against them. From the authorisation (copy of which is Annexure P3 and its true translation is Annexure P3/1) I find that the competent authority did not accord its sanction for prosecuting the petitioners 2, 3 and 4 and the sanction was issued only to prosecute M/s S.N. Chemical Industriespetitioner No. 1, and also M/s Dhillon Khad Store. In view of these facts, the complaint filed against petitioners 2, 3 and 4 is not sustainable. I am, therefore, of the opinion that no purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings against petitioners 2, 3 and 4 in the absence of proper sanction against them.

From the reasons recorded hereinabove, the petition is partly allowed and I hold that the complaint against petitioners 2, 3 and 4 namely B.D. Sharma, L.N. Aggarwal and Rakesh Bansal is not maintainable and accordingly, the proceedings initiated against the aforesaid three persons are, hereby quashed. The proceedings against petitioner No. 1 M/s S.N. Chemical Industries, Gurgaon and other accused shall, however, continue.