IMPORTANT POINT
Where proceedings are taken in contravention of law, e g., Fertiliser Control Order, 1957, Sch. II, clauses (e) and (f), they are liable to be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C.

JUDGMENT

Ujagar Singh J. -The petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceedings and the impugned order dated 20-3-1986, Annexure PI, directing the framing of the charge by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, exercising as a Special Judge.

2. The facts leading to the present petition are that First Information Report No.8 dated 12-1-1983 was registered in Police Station Longowal, District Sangrur against the petitioners. The contents of the First Information Report shows that a sample was drawn by Shri Tejwant Singh, Fertilizer Inspector on 5-8-1980 from the Depot or M/s Jarnail Singh, Baldev Krishan, Cheema, strictly according to Schedule II of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957. The sample was deposited in the office of the concerned authority by Shri Tejwant Singh and was sent to the Fertiliser Testing. Laboratory, Ludhiana for analysis through Shri Tarlochan Singh, D.A.O. Dhuri. The sample was analysed and the report shows as under:

Sample No.

Name of fertilizer

Specification according to sch. I of F.C.O 1957

Actual Chemical Analysis

Variation permissible tolerance limits for variation

171

Urea

Total nitrogen 46 %

43.5

2.5 0.2

Whereas the standard prescribed in schedule I attached to the order is as follows:

Name of Fertilizer

Specification of fertilizer

Permissble limit or variation

46 %

Total nitrogen 46 %

0.2

Therefore, the sample was found to be substandard (and not according to the specifications prescribed in the said Schedu1e and therefore, offence under section 12- A of the Essential Commodities Act, read with clause 13.1 (a), 13.1(b) III and vii of the said Order was made out and it was punishable as such'. The First Information 'Report was lodged by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Sangrur against the petitioners, as well as against M/s National Fertilizers Limited, manufacturers. The petitioners were arrested and one Shri Ravinder Pal Singh, Production Manager of the National Fertilizers Limited was also arrested during the investigation. After the investigation charge-sheet was submitted and the Special,

Judge has framed charges against the petitioners, as also against Ravinder Pal Singh, vide order dated 20-3-1986, Annexure. PI. The prosecution examined PW 1 Head Constable Surjit Singh and PW2 Tejwant Singh, Fertilizer Inspector and the case was posted for adducing further prosecution evidence for 14-10-1986. Tejwant Singh, Fertilizer Inspector (PW2) has deposed as under:

"On 5-8-1980 I was posted as Fertilizer Inspector at Sangrur. On that day I along with Bant Singh Com Post Inspector and Gulab Singh Baledar, went to Cheema and visited the premises of M/s Jarnail Singh, Baldev Krishan Fertilizer Dealer, Cheema. Shri Jai Lal Salesman accused now present in the Court was present at the premises of the said firm at that time. I checked the stock relating to Urea fertilizer there were 44 bags of Urea fertilizer of 50 kgs., which were machine stitched. I took sample with my Parkhi of urea fertilizer from M/s. Jarnail Singh, Baldev Krishan Fertilizer Dealer, Cheema. The Parkhi of Urea fertilizer was taken from all bags was mixed with my hands and I took out of that mixture 500 grams each in three parts."

The quashing is sought on the following grounds: -

(i) 44 bags of Urea fertilizer were machine-stitched. and contained 50 kg each. These bags had been received from National Fertilizer Limited, Bhatinda and the petitioners had no knowledge about Urea fertilizer;

(ii) Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act involves only guilty mind as an ingredient of the offence and therefore the doctrine of men$ rea applies to such offences;

(iii) Sample of the fertilizer was sub-standard and not that, it was adulterated and therefore, it was the sole-responsibility of the manufacturer to: explain and account for the fertilizer being sub-standard. It is none of the faults of the petitioner-dealer who purchased the fertilizer bags from the manufacturer against a bill which has been duly taken into possess