The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of expert opinions and the interpretation of permissible limits for nutrient contents in determining the standard of the fertilizer under the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985.

JUDGMENT

H. S. Madaan, J —By way of filing the present revision petition, petitioner/accused - Amrik Singh Parmar has challenged notice of accusation under Section 7 read with Section 12-AA of the Essential Commodities Act served upon him by Special Judge, Sangrur as well as order dated 8.6.2001 passed in that regard. The revisionist prays that the revision petition be accepted, the notice of accusation served upon him as well as order dated 8.6.2001 be set aside and he be discharged.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that concern Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited, Kandla (for short IFFCO) has been engaged in manufacturing and selling of Dia-ammonium 18:46 and petitioner was in its employment but he has since retired from service; that on 15.10.1990, a sample of Dia-ammonium 18:46 fertilizer was drawn by Agriculture Department from the premises of M/s Iffco Kissan Farmers Service Centre, Sangrur, a dealer of IFFCO, which was sent to Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana and as per report dated 20.11.1990 received therefrom, the sample was not found according to specifications; that respondent No.2 informed the company about the sample having been found to be sub-standard, however, without considering the reply filed by the manufacturing company he cancelled the dealer's registration certificate (licence); that such dealer had filed an appeal before Director Agriculture, Punjab, Chandigarh, who vide his order dated 8.4.1991 allowed the appeal and directed restoration of licence; that in that order, Director Agriculture, Punjab, Chandigarh while interpreting the provisions of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 observed that the sample clearly came within permissible limits of the schedule; nevertheless respondent No.2 pursued the matter with the police and got registered an FIR No.112 dated 13.5.1991 with Police Station City, Sangrur against the dealer as well as against the present petitioner being employee of manufacturing company; that the police had filed challan dated 1.2.1992 in the Court of Special Judge, Sangrur; that on writ petition having been filed, the proceedings in the FIR were struck down; that statement of complainant Chief Agricultural Officer, Sangrur was recorded by the Court on 23.11.2000, in which he stated that at the time of taking sample, the same was well within permissible limits and that the order passed by the Director Agriculture, Punjab, Chandigarh was correct, however, learned Judge, dismissed the application for discharge and served notice of accusation upon the petitioner/accused.

3. According to the petitioner, the fertilizer was manufactured and supplied by the company and not by the petitioner in his individual capacity and no punishment could be inflicted upon the petitioner for the said reason. According to the petitioner, he had been nominated as 'responsible person' in terms of Clause 24 of the Control Order; that if any person is nominated by the company then it is the duty of the concerned department to first verify that the concerned person has actual control on the quality of the product produced or not; that in case of petitioner, admittedly there is no evidence showing approval granted by the Central Government as required under the clause; that as per allegations in the FIR also, there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner was Incharge and responsible for conduct of overall business of the company. Therefore the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. Several contentions have been raised to put forward a plea of innocence by the petitioner.

4. Notice of the petition was issued to respondent State, which put in appearance through counsel.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record.

6. The operative part of the impugned order passed by learned Special Judge, Sangrur is as under:

The other ground taken by the accused, which is also adopted during the course of arguments by the other accused Amrik Singh, was that the