SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Pat) 38

PATNA HIGH COURT
R.N.Sahay, J.
Hindustan Agencies
Versus
State
Criminal No. 15071 of 1992 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 16, 1997

Illegal exercise of power under the Fertilizer Control Act, 1985 resulting in the quashing of the prosecution

Headnote:

Fertilizer Control Act, 1985 - Inspection and Seizure - Illegal exercise of power under Sec. 27 of the Act - Prosecution quashed

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a fertilizer dealer, was prosecuted under the Fertilizer Control Act, 1985 after discrepancies were found in the stock register during an inspection by the B. D. O.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the B. D. O. had illegally exercised power under Sec. 27 of the Act, as the relevant clause had been amended and the authority to inspect and seize had ceased. As a result, the prosecution against the petitioner was quashed.

Issues: Illegal exercise of power under Sec. 27 of the Act, validity of the prosecution

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the B. D. O. had no authority to inspect and seize the petitioner's fertilizer due to the cessation of the relevant clause after the amendment, rendering the prosecution non est.

Final Decision: The application was allowed and the proceeding against the petitioner was quashed.

Judgment

K. N. sanay, J.

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner is a proprietory firm dealing in fertilizer. The petitioner had licence for dealing in fertiliser under Fertilizer Control Act, 1985. This order is a Central order.

3. It appears that by notification dated 16th April, 1986, the State government authorised certain authorities including B. D. O. under clause 27 of the order which states that the State Government or the Central government may by notification in the official gazette appoint such number of persons, as it thinks necessary, to be Inspectors of fertilisers for the purpose of this Order.

4. In the instant case, on 8-9-1992 the petitioners premises was inspected and detected some discrepancies in the stock register. According to the petitioner although he obtained licence on 8-9-1w2 but had not started business when the search was made. The shop of the petitioner was closed. The fertiliser of the petitioner was seized by the B. D. O. The prosecution was launched under Sec.1 of the E. C. Act.

5. It appears that the Central government amended the Fertiliser order by S. O.261 (E), dated 16th April, 1991 and the following clause was inserted after Clause 27 of the Order-

"27-A. Qualifications for appointment of Fertiliser Inspector.- No person shall be eligible for appointment as Fertiliser Inspector under this order, unless he possesses the following qualifications, namely:-

(1) graduate in Agriculture or science with Chemistry as one of the subjects, from a recognized University, and (2) training or experience in the quality control of fertilisers and working in the State or Central Department of Agriculture. "

6 In the instant case, B. D. O. had exercised power under Sec.27 of the act by virtue of notification dated 16th april, 1986 which has ceased after the amendment. The search and seizure is itself illegal and so the prosecution of the petitioner is non est.

7. In the result, this application is allowed and the proceeding against the petitioner is quashed. Application Allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top