1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR **** :ORDER: M/s. Biggaji Agro Agency, Bikaner & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan. **** S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.362/2005 FOR QUASHING THE COMPLAINT AND THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CR. CASE NO.615/2003 – STATE VS. M/S. BIGGAJI AGRO AGENCY & ORS PENDING IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BIKANER FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 3(K)(1), 17(1) (A), 18 AND 29(1)(A) OF THE INSECTICIDES ACT, 1968. **** Date of Order : 28th Jan., 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA Mr.Suresh Kumbhat, for the petitioners. Mr.JPS Choudhary, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioners have challenged their prosecution for the offences under Sections 3(K)(1), 17(1)(A), 18 and 29 2 (1)(A) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1968), which was pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner in Cr. Case No.615/2003 – State Vs. M/s. Biggaji Agro Agency & Ors. Brief facts of the case are that drug sample was taken from the shop of M/s. Biggaji Agro Agency, Bikaner on 12th June, 2003 and was sent for its analysis and report to the State Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Bikaner on 16th June, 2003. The report adverse to the petitioners received on 11th July, 2003 holding that sample to be mis-branded and it does not conform to the relevant specification in the test report. Complaint was submitted in the trial court on 15th Oct., 2003. The prosecution case has been challenged on the ground of sanction for prosecution given under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1968 to be illegal as has been given without application of mind and without considering any of the facts of the case before granting sanction for prosecution. The sanction order is as under: - “REVISED Government of Rajasthan Directorate of Agriculture, Rajasthan, Jaipur. No.F4(16)WC/Tech1/PR/2003 Dated7.10.03 3 OFFICE ORDER In exercise of the powers conferred under Sub Section (1) of Section 31 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (Central Act, 46 of 1968) and after careful examination of the case I, hereby given written consent on behalf of the State Government (Authorized vide Govt. Notification No.F.4(4)Agri./Gr.2/A/79, dated 19.4.84) to the Insecticide Inspector & Assistant Director of Agri.(Ext) Bikaner to institute the case for prosecution under section 29(1) a of the Insecticides Act, 1968 in public interest against the following. In this case, the consent issued vide letter no.F4(34)WC/Tech/1/PP/2003/9340-41 dated 4.9.2003 is hereby cancelled. DEALER: 01: M/s. Shri Bigaji Agro Agency, 91-B, Nai anaz Mandi, Bikaner. 02: Shri Bhagirath S/o Shri Mangla Ram Jat, Prop. Of M/s. Shri Biggaji Agro Agency, 91-B, Nai anaz Mandi, Bikaner. DISTRIBUTOR: - 01: M/s. Jai Chemicals, 9-10 Udhyog market, Nai Mandi road, Sriganganagar. 02: Shri Subhash chand S/o Banarshi Das, 378 Agrsen nagar, Sriganganagar, Prop. Of M/s. Jai chemicals, 9-10 udhyog market, Nai Mandi road, Sriganganagar. 03: Shri Amrit lal Batra S/o Shri Aisee ram batra, r/o S-27/28, NDSE Part-2, Delhi,Partner of M/s. Jai chemicals, 9-10 udhyog market, Nai mandi road, Sriganganagar. 04: Smt. Reeta rai W/o Shri Rahul Rai, R/o S- 493, Greater Kailash Part, New Delhi, partner of M/s. Jai chemicals, 9-10 udhyog market, Nai Mandi road, Sriganganagar. 05: Shri Sanjay Batra S/o Shri A.L. Batra, R/o C-27/28, New Delhi, partner of M/s. Jai chemicals, 9-10 udhyog market, Nai Mandi road, Sriganganagar. 4 06: Shri Tarun Kumar Munjral S/o Shri Sushil Kumar, R/o 27-28 NDSE Part-2, New Delhi, partner of M/s. Jai chemicals, 9-10 udhyog market, Nai Mandi road, Sriganganagar. MANUFACTURER:- 01: M/s. Jai Chemicals, 14/1, Mathura Road, Faridabad. 02: Shri V.K. Katara S/o Shri N.L. Sharma, Responsible person for quality control of M/s/ Jai Chemicals, 14/1, Mathura Road, Faridabad. Sd/- Joint Director of Agriculture (Plant Protection,) Raj. Jaipur Dated: 7/10 No.F.4(16)WC/Tech1/PP/2003/11260 – 62 Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to : - 01: The Insecticide Inspector & Assistant Director of Agri. (Ext) Bikaner with reference to his letter No. 1581 dated 20.9.2003 against analsis report No.395-97 dated 11.07.2003. He may please contact the Assistant Public Prosecutor & Prepare the case for prosecution in consultation with the Assistant Public Prosecutor (with 2 spare copies). 02: The Joint Director of Agri. (Ext), Sriganganagar. 03: Dy. Director of Agri. (Ext) Churu. Joint Director of Agriculture, (Plant Protection) Raj. Jaipur.” Verbatim the same sanction order was under considering in the case of B.A.S.F. India & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors reported in 2004(3) RCR (Cr.) 173 and this Court held that such sanction for prosecution by the 5 authority is nothing but an order passed mechanically and without application of mind. This Court in said B.A.S.F. India Ltd followed the decision of tis Court delivered in the case of M/s. Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1996(2) WLC 690 : 1996(2) RLW Raj. 271. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered in the case of M/s. Pesto Chemicals India Ltd Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1994(3) RecentCR 484 wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court while considering the sanction for prosecution under the Act of 1968 observed that for the sanction to be valid, it has to be established that sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence with which the accused is proposed to be charged and it is desirable that the facts should be mentioned in the sanction. Sanction in that case was given on a stereo-type form, where in only the name of the firm, dealer, distributor and the company of the manufacturer and also the various sections of the Act under which the firms and the company were to be charged, are mentioned. 6 That sanction does not contain the name of the Insecticide Inspector who took the sample and how the same was found to be misbranded. In said case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in the absence of these particulars, it cannot be said that the person authorized by the State Government to grant sanction fully applied his mind and consented to the prosecution of the petitioner after his full satisfaction regarding the commission of offences. In the present case also, it appears from the sanction that in sanction order there is no mention of any fact nor there is mention that the sanctioning authority has carefully examined the material on the basis of which he could have recorded his satisfaction for grant of sanction for prosecution. In the sanction order only particulars of dealers, distributors and manufacturers have been given apart from fact of mentioning that the sanctioning authority is hereby giving the consent on behalf of the State Government to the Insecticide Inspector and Asstt. Director of Agriculture (Ext), Bikaner to institute the case for prosecution under Section 29(1) (a) of the Act of 1968 in 7 public interest against the parties mentioned in the sanction order, who are dealers, distributors and manufacturers. In view of the above fact that the said sanction order has been passed mechanically in stereo-type form and sanction order does not contain any fact or particular, which can be basis for forming opinion of competent authority for grant of sanction for prosecution, the sanction for prosecution is illegal. In view of the above, for want of valid sanction for prosecution, the prosecution cannot proceed and prosecution of the petitioner in Cr.case no.615/2003 -State Vs. M/s. Biggaji Agro Agency & Ors pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner is liable to be quashed. Hence, the misc. petition of the petitioner is allowed and the prosecution pending against the petitioner in Cr.Case No.615/2003 – State Vs. M/s. Biggaji Agro Agency & Ors. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner is quashed and set aside. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-