S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment in Crl. A. No. 125/ 1998 reversing the order of confiscation of seized stocks of 81 bags of FACT (20:20:15) fertilizers and ordering release of 564 bags of remaining stock passed by the Joint collector, Khammam, in MC No. 2/1995 dated 27-3-1995.

( 2 ) THE facts that arise for consideration can be briefly stated as follows: the Agricultural Officer and Fertilizer inspector, Madhira, inspected the shop of the revision petitioner namely M/s. Poornasri venkata Ramana Fertilizers, R/o. H. No. 10-52, madhira on 20-12-1994 at about 12-30 p. m. , and noticed some discrepancies in the account when compared with book balance and ground balance. It is also noticed by him that the fertilizers are being sold with less weighment instead of 50 kgs per bag to the ryots by cheating them. Thereupon, he has presented report under Section 6-A of the E. C Act, 1955 before the Joint collector, Khammam, for variation of entries made in the stock register and also for selling the fertilizers with lesser weighment instead of 50 kgs per bag which amounted to violation of Clause 7, 19 (l) (a) (v) (vii), 35 of Fertilizer Control order, 1985. Thereupon, the Joint Collector, khammam, issued a show-cause notice under Section 6b of the E. C. Act, 1955. The 1 st respondent has contended that he is not responsible for the variations in the weighments including shortage of fertilizers and manufacturer is responsible for the same. It is also contended that the Agricultural officer and Fertilizer Inspector has no power for weighment of bag and the Senior inspector of Legal Metrology Department alone is having powers for such weighments and for filing cases under Clause 6 (1 ) (c) and 35 (1) of the Standards of Weights and measures (PC) Rules, 1977. Thereupon, the joint Collector, Khammam, passed an order stating that the charge for storage and sale of fertilizers with short weighment instead of 50 kgs is held to be proved and thereby the petitioner has violated Clause 35 of fertilizer Control Order, 1985. The Joint collector, ordered for confiscation of seized stocks of 81 bags of FACT (20:20:15) fertilisers to the Government. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein, has carried the matter in appeal before the sessions Judge, Khammam. The learned sessions Judge, through his judgment dated 14-8-2000 set aside the order of Joint collector, holding that the Fertilizer Control order does not permit its officers to seize the stocks and only the officers working under Legal Metrology Department have got the powers to inspect and seize the stocks for shortage in weighment when compared with the label mentioned on the bag. Thereupon, the Joint Collector, Khammam, preferred this revision before this Court. The learned Public Prosecutor has relied on 19 (l) (c) (iv) (v) of Fertilizer (Control) order, 1985 and 28 (c) and contends that if any of the particulars mentioned on the bag found to be false or misleading the officers under Fertilizer Control Orders can invoke the provisions for violation of Rule 19 of the said Order. It is also contended that the officer can enter upon and search any premises where any fertilizer is manufactured or stored or exhibited for sale or if he has reason to believe that any fertilizer has been or is being manufactured, sold, offered for sale, stored, exhibited for sale or distributed contrary to the provisions of the order, and therefore, the order of the Joint Collector is valid and needs no interference by the learned sessions Judge, as it is in accordance with the provisions of Fertilizer Control Orders and E. C. Act.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent mainly contends that the revision itself is not maintainable. He further contends that the Legal Metrology department alone has got jurisdiction to initiate action for violation of the conditions if the contents on the bag do not weigh as per the standards of Weights and Measures department, and tries to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document