Honble GARG, J.–These two criminal misc. petitions which have been filed by the accused petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are being decided by a common order as common questions of law and facts are involved in these misc. petitions.

(2). In both these criminal misc. petition it has been prayed that complaint No. 148/2000 pending in the Court of ACJM, Nimbahera be quashed and also order dated 15.6.96 by which the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act Cases, Pratapgarh took cognizance against the petitioners for violation of Regulation 19(1)(a) and 19(c)(iii) of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1985) punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act be quashed.

(3). They arise in the following circumstances :

(i) That on 14.6.96, the Fertiliser Inspector of the Office of Agriculture, Chittorgarh filed a complaint in the Court of Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act Cases, Pratapgarh alleging that on 2.9.95 he went for sudden checking of M/s. Karunda Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. After giving his introduction, exercising powers under Regulation 28 of the Order of 1985, he decided to take sample of the Urea, gave notice of his such intention, purchased samples, divided it into 3 parts, prepared a memo of inspection and seizure, delivered one sealed sample to the owner and obtained receipt therefor. It is further alleged that Parasmal Jain was Manager of the Samiti who is one the accused in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 500/96 and thereafter the sample was sent to State Fertiliser Quality Control Laboratory, Jodhpur on 7.9.95 for analysis and from where a report dated 17.10.95 was received which shows that the sample was found to be sub-standard. Further case of the prosecution is that the accused petitioner in criminal Misc. Petition No. 476/96 was manufacturer of Urea of which samples were taken.

(4). On this complaint, the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Chittorgarh took cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act on 15.6.96.

(5). Aggrieved from the order dated 15.6.96, the petitioners have filed these two misc. petitions.

(6). In the abovementioned misc. petitions following submissions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners :

(i) The order of 1985 has provided various safeguards in Schedule II appended to the Order of 1985 for drawing samples of fertiliser by the Inspector and since none of the safeguards have been taken by the Inspector while taking samples from M/s. Karunda Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti, therefore, the report of Public analyst is no report in the eye of law and on this ground, the whole proceedings should be quashed and for that reliance has been placed on a case Chandra Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan (1).

(ii) That in the order of 1985 no provisions has been made to send the sample for re-testing from any independent Laboratory and hence it has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused that since Punjab and Haryana High Court in Writ Petition No. 5643/1995 decided on 16.9.96 (Tarsem Singh vs. Union of India (2) has held that Regulation 19(1) of the Order of 1985 is violative of Article 19 as well as 21 of the Constitution and it cannot be allowed to operate and as such Regulation 19 of the Order of 1985 was struck down. Therefore, all the proceedings pending against the petitioners should be quashed as they are without any force of law.

(7). On the other hand, the learned P.P. opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that these misc. petitions have no force and they should be dismissed.

(8). I have heard both.

(9). In my opinion the first argument would not be helpful for quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as whether at the time of taking sample safeguards provided in Schedule II appended to the Order of 1985 have been followed or not, is a question of fact and therefore, in absence of ev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document