The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of prior sanction under Section 31 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, and the specific regulations governing the sale of bioproducts.

GURBIR SINGH, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.155 dated 10.09.2015, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and Section 29 of Insecticides Act, 1968, registered at Police Station City Kotkapura, District Faridkot, and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR.

2. The case in question is registered on the complaint of Shri Karanjeet Singh Gill, Block Agriculture Officer, Kotkapura. As per allegation, on 10.09.2015, complainant along with others had conducted checking of the premises of M/s Gujarat Mineral, Vijay Cotton Factory, Jalalena Road, Kotkapura. During the course of checking, unauthorized medicines of M/s Gujarat Mineral Company along with unauthorized stocked medicines of M/s National Pesticides and Chemical, Jodsahida Road, Kotkapura and M/s Fineline Agriaids Pvt. Ltd. Shop No.84 New Danna Mandi, Kotkapura were found stored. No license, records, stock register, bill book etc., was found at the spot as such this firm had violated the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rules of 1971 as such the concerned firm had perpetuated fraud with the agriculturists and violated Rule 29 of the Insecticide Act, 1968. Apart from that, the firm by storing the organic fertilizers of M/s Fineline Agrcides Co., as such the concerned firm had also violated Rule 29 of the Fertilizer Control Act, 1985 and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for playing a fraud with the farmers. The FIR was registered against the said firm and its responsible persons namely, Bhupinder Singh son of Tej Singh and owner of the company Ramesh Vyas and Naresh Vyas sons of Vishwa Nath Vyas. On the said complaint, case under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and Section 7 of Insecticides Act, 1968, was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that M/s Gujarat Mineral Company was having a valid license to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribution of insecticide which is valid upto 31.12.2016, issued by the Licensing Authority i.e. Deputy Director of Agriculture (LC&PP), Punjab. Similarly, the sister concern of this Company i.e. M/s Fineline Agriaids Pvt. Ltd. was also having a valid license to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribution of insecticide, which is valid upto 31.12.2015, issued by the Licensing Authority i.e. Deputy Director of Agriculture (LC&PP), Punjab. Copies of the Licenses are annexed as Annexure P-2 and P-3). It is further submitted that samples of insecticide, as drawn from the godown premises on the spot have already been found to be PASS i.e. according to the specifications by the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad, which is a conclusive report (Annexure P-6). It is further submitted that both the aforesaid companies have appointed their C&F Agent to Chelawasia Agrotech-C&F Kotkapura for distribution of the insecticides in the State of Punjab. The C&F Agent is having the control over the godown situated at Jalanena Road, Kotkapura. The firm M/s National Pesticide and Chemicals has also appointed the said Chelawasia Agrotech C&F Kotkapura as their C&F Agent. The ledger account of 2012-13 of said C&F Agent is annexure P-4 and relationship of said C&F Agent and M/s Gujarat Minerals is annexed as Annexure P-5. It is submitted that there is absolutely no allegation that there was any defect in the medicines of insecticides which had been recovered from the godown at Kotkapura. The allegations are already covered under a special legislation, so FIR could not be registered and registration of FIR with the aid of the provisions of general law is not sustainable in the eyes of law. No prior sanction in terms of Section 31 of Insecticides Act, 1968, was obtained. Without obtaining prior mandatory written consent/sanction from the Sanctioning Authority no complaint could be filed and no prosecution is possible. The complainant filed the affidavit in this Court