Back
1983 Supreme(P&H) 135
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.S.Bains and B.S.Yadav JJ.
In Charge Production, Haryana State Co-operative Supply And Marketing Federation Ltd.
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6763 of 1982,
Decided On : MARCH 9, 1983
The manufacturer of sub-standard fertilizers can be tried at a place where it is manufactured or a place where it is ultimately sold along with the retailer or the wholesale dealer.
Headnote:
FERTILIZER CONTROL ORDER - JURISDICTION - MANUFACTURER OF SUB-STANDARD FERTILIZER CAN BE TRIED AT A PLACE WHERE IT IS SOLD - SECTION 180 CR.P.C. APPLIES - SECTION 23 OF THE INSECTICIDES ACT, 1968 - JOINT TRIAL OF MANUFACTURER, DISTRIBUTOR AND RETAIL SELLER IS POSSIBLE IN A SUITABLE CASE - UNITY OF PURPOSE AND DESIGN - COMMON INTENTION THAT A PARTICULAR ARTICLE FOUND ADULTERATED SHOULD REACH THE CONSUMER AS FOOD.
Fact of the Case:
A complaint was filed against the petitioner, a fertilizer manufacturer, and the proprietors of a retail store under Section 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order for allegedly manufacturing and selling sub-standard fertilizer. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the court at Sultanpur Lodhi to try the case, arguing that the offense of manufacture took place at Tarori, District Karnal, and not within the jurisdiction of the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the manufacturer of sub-standard fertilizers can be tried at a place where it is manufactured or a place where it is ultimately sold along with the retailer or the wholesale dealer. The court relied on the Supreme Court authority in Bhagwan Das Jagdish Chander V/s. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 1309, which held that the activities of the manufacturer, the distributor, and the retail seller are sufficiently connected in a case of sale of an article found to be adulterated by a unity of purpose and design, and therefore, their joint trial is possible in a suitable case.
Issues: 1. Whether the manufacturer of sub-standard fertilizers can be tried within the jurisdiction of the Court where it is manufactured or a place where it is ultimately sold along with the retailer or the wholesale dealer. 2. Whether the offense of sale of sub-standard fertilizers becomes an offense by reason of its relation to any other offense, and therefore, the provisions of Section 180 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such an offense.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the manufacturer of sub-standard fertilizers can be tried at a place where it is manufactured or a place where it is ultimately sold along with the retailer or the wholesale dealer. The court relied on the Supreme Court authority in Bhagwan Das Jagdish Chander V/s. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 1309, which held that the activities of the manufacturer, the distributor, and the retail seller are sufficiently connected in a case of sale of an article found to be adulterated by a unity of purpose and design, and therefore, their joint trial is possible in a suitable case. 2. The court held that the offense of sale of sub-standard fertilizers becomes an offense by reason of its relation to the offense of manufacture of sub-standard fertilizers, and therefore, the provisions of Section 180 Cr.P.C. apply to such an offense.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the Court at Sultanpur Lodhi has the jurisdiction to try the manufacturer, that is, the petitioner.
A.S.BAINS, J.
1. The Fertilizer Ins-pector, Kapurthala inspected the pre-mises of M/s. Guru Nanak Khad Store at Sultanpur Lodhi on January 11, 1979 and the sample of NPK fertilizer alleg-ed to have been manufactured by the petitioner-Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limit-ed hereinafter called the HAFED) is stated to have been drawn by the said Inspector. It is further alleged that the sample was got tested from the Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana and was alleged to be found to be sub-standard. Thereafter a complaint was filed by the Chief Agricultural Offi-cer, Kapurthala, in the Court of Judi-cial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi against the proprietors of Guru Nanak Khad Store, Sultanpur Lodhi and the peti-tioner under Section 12-A of the Essen-tial Commodities Act read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order 1957, (hereinafter called as the Fertilizer Order). The Judicial Magis-trate has summoned the petitioner and the proprietors of the Guru Nanak Khad Store and the proceedings are pending against the petitioner under the afore-said Fertilizer order. It is against the summoning order that the present peti-tion has been filed under Section 482 of the Cri.P.C. 1973, by the HAFED.
2. Mr. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the act of manufacture of fertilizer in question alleged to be manufactured by the HAFED took place at Tarori, District Karnal, therefore, the Judicial Magistrate at Sultanpur Lodhi has no jurisdiction to try the petitioner. He relied upon Satinder Singh V/s. State of Punjab (1982) 9 Cri LT 252 and Nohar Chand Gupta V/s. State of Punjab (1982) 9 Cri LT 278 (2). It is true that in the aforesaid authori-ties the view taken is that the Courts where the actual goods are manufactur-ed only have the jurisdiction and not the Court where such manufactured goods are sold by a retailer or sample taken. But with utmost respect to their Lordships, we do not subscribe to this view. It seems that the Supreme Court authority reported as Bhagwan Das Jagdish Chander V/s. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 1309 : (1975 Cri LJ 1091), was not brought to their notice. In Crl. Misc. No.2104-M of 1982, decided by-brother B.S. Yadav, J. on June 2, 1982*, and, Crl. Misc. No.5448-M of 1978, decided by brother Gurnam Singh, J., on December 21, 1979, a contrary view has been taken in the basis of the aforesaid Supreme Court authority and in fact as there was a conflict between four Judges of this Court, this petition was directed to be heard by the Division Bench. *Reported in (1982) 9 Cri LT 334 (Punj and Har).
3. Thus the sole point involved for determination in this petition is whether the alleged manufacturer of sub-stan-dard fertilizers can be tried within the jurisdiction of the Court where it is manufactured or a place where it is ultimately sold along with the retailer or the wholesale dealer. According to Mr. Gill counsel for the petitioner so far as the offence of sale is concerned it cannot be said that it becomes an of-fence by reason of its relation to any other and therefore the provisions of Section 180 Cri.P.C. 1973, would not apply to such an offence, namely; the offence of manufacture of such fertilizer. This argument is misconceived. In Crl. Misc. No.1473-M of 1982 (Nohar Chand V/s. State of Punjab) decided on July 28 1982, (Reported in (1982) 9 Cri LT 278 (2)) by brother C.S. Tiwana, J., the view was based on the judgment of brother S.C. Mital in Cri. Misc. 1158-M of 1981 (Satinder Singh V/s. State of Punjab) decided on February 24, 1982, (Reported in (1982) 9 Cri LT 252) and this decision was given on the basis of an authority of the Gujarat High Court re-ported as State of Gujarat V/s. Agro Che-micals and Animal, 1980 Cri LJ 516. It is true that in view of this authority, it has been held that the manufacturer of sub-standard fertilizers can only be tried at the place where the sub-standard fertilizer is manufactured, but if this view
