The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adherence to prescribed procedures, the need for conclusive evidence to establish guilt, and the obligation to notify concerned parties about analysis findings.

( 1 ) PRESENT appeal is filed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20th February, 1993 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Mehsana in essential Commodities Case No. 7 of 1991 for violating the provisions of Section 19 (1) of fertilizer Control Order and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

( 2 ) MR. P. K. JANI, learned Advocate for the appellants has taken me through the relevant part of the oral as well as documentary evidence recorded by the presiding Judge while dealing with the criminal Case and tried summarily. To appreciate the say of Mr. Jani and learned a. P. P. , Mr. Desai, it would be proper for the court to state the prosecution case in brief.

2. 1 That on 18th August, 1990, the complainant-Agricultural Inspector, Ramabhai joitaram Patel had visited the premises of gungdipati Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited, patan (hereinafter referred to as cooperative Society ) and had drawn sample of chemical fertilizer Single Super Phosphate fertilizer (granules) having trade mark of ship manufactured by accused No. 1-Company and same was stored for distribution amongst the members of the cooperative society. The standard of the material mentioned on the bag containing this super phosphate chemical fertilizer is 16% P2o5 water soluble. It is the say of the complainant that accused No. 2 is concerned with the activity of manufacturing and marketing of this fertilizers. At the time of visit / inspection, 193 bags of super phosphate chemical fertilizer were lying in the premises of the co-operative society and the complainant-Inspector had drawn the sample by selecting bags as per the norms fixed. This sample was marked as Sample no. 31/90-91 and was sent to Government approved authorized Laboratory for analysis at Gandhinagar. The Laboratory after analyzing the said fertilizer has declared the aforesaid sample as "sub-standard". In the aforesaid sample of fertilizer, in jaldravya, the ratio of P2o5 should be 16%. However, instead of that it was found 14. 60% and percentage of wetness should be 5% instead of that it was found 5. 05. In the same way as per the provisions the moisture upto 5 % is permissible which was found 5. 05% meaning thereby the moisture was found 0. 05% more. The sample was drawn in the presence of the person, who was employee of the co-operative society. It is also alleged that sample was drawn in accordance with law and as per the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Fertilizer Control order. The sample was drawn, tagged arid sealed in accordance with the scheme provided under the Fertilizer Control Order. Out of three samples which were sealed by the complainant, one was given to person present, the another one was sent to the higher authority so in case of need it can be produced before the Court during the course of trial and another one was sent for analysis to the Laboratory. The co-operative society was intimated about the finding and thereafter considering the nature of response given by the respondent-society, both the accused have been prosecuted, as the sample was drawn from a packed polythene container of the fertilizer.

2. 2 It is the say of the complainant and the prosecution that the entire stock was purchased by the co-operative society from accused No. 1. The order was placed with the distributor and it is alleged that the stock ultimately was dispatched to the co-operative society by the accused No. l. The prosecution has examined mainly three witnesses. Firstly, the prosecution witness No. l, who is the complainant, who has tried to prove the formalities, while drawing the sample and sending it for analysis to the Laboratory and other administrative aspects such as procedure after receipt of the laboratory report including obtaining the sanction for prosecution and filing of the complaint. He has also tried to prove the documents prepared by him and / or recovered during the drawing of sample and sending it for analysis.