JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on him under Clause 19(1)(a) of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in C.C. No. 13 of 1994 by the judgment dated 25-11-1997 of the Special Judge under the Essential Commodities Act (Sessions Judge), Guntur, the third accused preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the appeal are that the Agricultural Officer (Inputs), Ponnuru, who was declared as Fertilizer Inspector, had drawn the sample of single super phosphate 16% from the first accused dealer's shop at Ponnuru on 23-12-1991 as per the procedure laid down in Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. One portion of the sample was sent to F.C.O. Lab, Ananthapur for analysis, the second portion was handed over to the first accused under a mediatornama and the third portion was retained with the Agricultural Officer. The Assistant Director of Agriculture (F.C.O.) Lab, Ananthapur, notified as Analytical Chemist, duly analysed the sample as per the prescribed procedure and declared it as not according to specification, as the active ingredient P205 is 15.02% as against 16% guaranteed nutrient material. The report was communicated to the Agricultural Officer, Ponnuru and Assistant Director of Agriculture, Tenali by registered post with a covering letter and the copies of the analysis report were served on the three accused under acknowledgement by the Agricultural Officer. The non-standard single super phosphate 16% was manufactured by the third accused, distributed through second accused and dealt with by the first accused as dealer. The accused were called upon to submit their explanations and they were prosecuted under Clause 19(1)(a)(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 read with Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act. After the case filed by the Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), Ponnuru was taken on file and the accused entered appearance, charges under Clause 19(1)(a)(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 read with Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act were framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty. P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-15 and Ex.D-1 were marked. During their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the first accused claimed that he was selling the fertilizer bags in the same state in which they were received. The second accused stated that he was supplying the fertilizer bags to the dealer as they were. The third accused stated that after testing the fertilizer in the company's laboratory and after finding it to be in conformity with the Fertilizer Control Order, then only the standard material was supplied to the distributors in high density polythene bags.

3. The trial Court in the impugned judgment found that P.W. 1 was competent to draw the sample and that the sample was found to be non-standard. It also held that the sample was drawn by following the proper procedure and held the laboratory reports of the third accused and the test reports issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu relied on by the third accused to have not been shown to be relating to the same batch of fertilizer bags that were supplied to the first accused. It concluded that the manufacturer of the fertilizer, the third accused, could not have sold or distributed any fertilizer which is not of prescribed standard, and absolved the first and second accused of the criminal liability, as the second accused merely forwarded the bags in question to the first accused and the first accused stored the bags properly and sold them. The first and second accused were held to be having no possibility to meddle or tamper with the machine stitched high density polythene bags of fertilizer and hence it acquitted them. However, the trial Court found that the third accused, who manufactured the sub-standard fertilizer in violation of the stated provisions of la