C O M M O N O R D E R

(per the Ho’ble Mr.Justice

A. Gopal Reddy)

These three Criminal Petitions involving common questions of fact and law were heard together and are being disposed of by this Common Order.

2. A learned Single Judge of this Court who heard Criminal Petition Nos.4111 and 4114 of 2003 noticing the conflicting views in M/s THUNGABHDRA CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS COMPANY LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE (REGU-LAR) YERRAGONDAPALEM(1) and in T. DEVESWAR REDDY, AREA MANAGER, M/S NAGARJUNA FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICUTLURE, HYDERABAD(2) on the question as to whether the law laid down by this Court in DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CUNTUR AND OTEHRS vs. STATE OF A.P., HYDERABAD AND OTEHRS(3), would also apply to offences committed prior to 30.6.1999 the date of order of the Division Bench, by order dated 7.6.2006 referred the matter for an authoritative pronouncement by a Division Bench.

3. Subsequently, when Criminal Petition No.5801 of 2003 involving consideration of similar question of law was taken up for hearing by one of us (AGRJ), it was represented that Crl. Petition Nos.4111 and 4114 of 2003 involving identical question of law were referred to a Division Bench and, therefore, the said petition may also be directed to be posted along with them. Accordingly, Crl. Petition No.5801 of 2003 was directed to be listed along with the said petitions. That is how the present petitions are listed before this Bench.

4. A Division Bench of this Court in District and Sessions Judge, Guntur vs. State of A.P. ( 3 supra) by judgment dated 30.6.1999, while upholding the constitutional validity of Clause 19(1) of the Control Order held that though Clause 28 of Schedule II of the Control Order does not contain a provision enabling the person accused of violation to get the third sample tested from an independent analyst, the same can be supplemented by a direction of this Court so as to read the said provision conforming to the fundamental rights and particularly, Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and such a right should be read into the Control Order and Schedule II appended to it and accordingly certain procedural safeguards were read into the provisions of the Control Order regarding requirement of furnishing one of the samples drawn during inspection of the dealers’ premises and supply a copy of analyst’s report to the distributor also.

5. In M/s. THUNGABHADRA CHEMICALS AND FERTTILISER’S (1 supra), one of us (Gopal Reddy,J) noticing the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in P.RAMACHANDRA RAO V. STATE OF KARNATAKA(4) held that once the court made it mandatory for drawing three samples and giving one sample to the accused, so that he can have tested the same by an independent agency, if disputes the correctness of analysis report furnished, such procedure to be followed will amount to legislation by reading it into rule will only have prospective in operation and will not defeat the prosecution already launched. Unless it is expressly or impliedly declared so, it will not have retrospective in operation. In the absence of such declaration by giving retrospectivity by a Division Bench of this court in DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,GUNTUR (3 supra), the proceedings initiated against the petitioners cannot be quashed since in all the cases, prosecution was launched much prior to the judgment in the above case.

5(i). The said judgment must be read in consonance with Cl.30 of the Control Order, which reads as under:

30. Time limit for analysis and communication of results:(1) Where sample of a fertilizer has been drawn, the same shall be dispatched, along with a memorz7 ;dum in Form-K to the laboratory for analysis within a period of seven days from the date of its drawal.

(2) The laboratory shall analyze the sample and forward the analysis report in Form-L within 60 days from the date of receipt of the sample in the laboratory to the authority specified in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document