The prosecution for an offence under the Insecticides Act cannot be instituted except by, or with the written consent of, the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government.

1. - This is a petition filed under S.482, Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer for quashing of the proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patti, District Amritsar, in consequence of First Information Report No. 144, dated May 23, 1984, of Police Station Patti registered for offences under Ss.3K(viii), 17(1), 18(1)(c) read with S.24(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and S.420, Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts as narrated in the petition, may be briefly recapitulated. A letter was addressed by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar, on April 19, 1984 to the Station House Officer, Patti stating that the Plant Protection Inspector had obtained a sample of a Pesticide having the trade name of Saturn 50 E.C. from the premises of the Firm Messrs Sharma Kheti Sewa Centre Patti. The sample, on analysis was found to possess higher active ingredient and, thus, the Pesticide was misbranded. Proceedings were, therefore, sought to be launched against Mohan Lal of the said Firm which had sold the misbranded Pesticide. On the basis of this letter First Information Report was registered and prosecution was launched in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patti, who framed a charge against Mohan Lal aforesaid for the offences, referred to above. During the trial of the said case, the statement of Karam Singh, Plant Protection Inspector was recorded and it is thereafter that the trying Magistrate passed an order summoning the three petitioners as accused in the case. The order is to the following effect :

"During the examination of P.W. 1 Karam Singh Plant Protection Inspector, it came to light through record that purchased pack of Pesticides from M/s. Janta Pesticides, Store, Tarn Taran and manufactured by M/s. Pesticides India Pvt. Ltd. The sample taken out of the stock was found to be below standard, therefore I find there is sufficient evidence to summon Shri M.L. Dangi, Regional Manager (North Circle) and Mr. J.P. Khanna, Asstt. Sales Officer of M/s. Pesticides India, Udaipur and Mr. Vijay Kumar of M/s. Janta Pesticides Stores, Tarn Taran. All are liable individually and collectively to face the trial under S.3 of Pesticides Act and under S.24 of the said Act, therefore, the accused be summoned accordingly to face their trial for the offence on 23-5-1985. Sd/- Hukam Chand (JMIC, Patti)"

3. A large number of grounds have been raised in the present petition, on the basis of which the order summoning the three petitioners has been impugned. As the order itself indicates, M.L. Dangi (petitioner No. 1) has been summoned in his capacity as Regional Manager (North Circle) and J.P. Khanna (Petitioner No. 2) as Assistant Sales Officer of Messrs Pesticides India, i.e. the manufacturing Firm Vijay Kumar (Petitioner No. 3) has been summoned as a representative of the Firm Messrs Ajanta Pesticides Store, Tarn Taran. Although the order itself does not indicate so, but it is stated at the bar that the said respondent is the Distributor of the Pesticides at Tarn Taran. At the time of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners confined his address to the two grounds mentioned at Serial Numbers (a) and (b) of Para 7 of the petition. Let us examine the same.

4. The learned counsel has referred to the provisions of S.3(k)(viii) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 which provides that an insecticide shall be deemed to be misbranded if it has a toxicity which is higher than the level prescribed etc. etc. The straight contention in this behalf is that the toxicity level of various types of insecticides has not been prescribed under any rule or regulation, much less of the product of which the sample was obtained. A written statement has been filed in this case on behalf of the respondents. Queerly enough, in reply to the above objection contained in Cl.(a), what is recited is merely R.24(2) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 which lays down the method of examination of samples. The argument adopted is tha