Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3511
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
H.S. Madaan, J.
Lodhiwala Cass Ltd - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab And Others - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 33168 of 2011, 8948 of 2012, 11862 of 2012, 13511 of 2012, 330 of 2013, 347 of 2013, 367 of 2013, 382 of 2013, 1403 of 2013, 3643 of 2013, 3707 of 2013
Decided On : 05-10-2018
Arun Chandra, Adv., Pardeep Singh Mirpur, Adv., Samina Dhir, Adv., Tarun Seth, Adv., Sumit Jain, Adv.
The main legal point established is that the liability for sub-standard fertilizer may not extend to entities engaged in distribution rather than sale, especially when there is no evidence of their involvement in the deterioration of the product.
Headnote:
Fertilizer Control Order - Quashing of complaints, summoning order and subsequent proceedings - Section 19(1) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985, Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Fact of the Case:
The State brought complaints under Section 19(1) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985, punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, against accused No.1 - society, accused No.2 - manufacturing unit, and accused No.3 - responsible for the conduct of business and quality of produce of manufacturer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused societies were not engaged in the sale of the fertilizer but its distribution among the members, and the samples had been drawn from sealed bags as supplied by the manufacturer through MARKFED. Therefore, no criminal liability could be fastened upon accused No.1 in absence of any act or omission on their parts.
Issues: The issues revolved around the responsibility for the quality of the fertilizer, the role of the accused societies in distribution, and the compliance with the Fertilizer Control Order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents to establish that the accused societies cannot be held responsible for the sub-standard fertilizer as they were not engaged in sale but distribution, and there were no allegations of tampering of the bags.
Final Decision: The court quashed the complaints, summoning orders, and ancillary proceedings against the petitioners, allowing the petitions.
JUDGMENT
H.S. Madaan, J. - By this order, I shall dispose of CRM-M-33168-2011(O&M), CRM-M-8948-2012(O&M), CRM-M-11862-2012(O&M), CRM-M13511-2012(O&M), CRM-M-1403-2013((O&M), CRM-M-3643- 2013(O&M), CRM-M-3707-2013(O&M), CRR-330-2013(O&M), CRR347-2013(O&M), CRR-367-2013(O&M) and CRR-382-2013(O&M) filed by petitioners.
2. Crm-M-33168-2011(O&M), CRM-M-8948-2012(O&M), CRM-M-11862-2012(O&M), CRM-M-13511-2012(O&M), CRM-M1403-2013((O&M), CRM-M-3643-2013(O&M), CRM-M-3707- 2013(O&M) for quashing of complaints, summoning order and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom pending in the trial Court have been filed by petitioner(s) accused No.1 - society.
3. Whereas CRR-330-2013(O&M), CRR-347-2013(O&M), CRR-367-2013(O&M) and CRR-382-2013(O&M) have been filed by the petitioner(s) against the impugned order dated 30.11.2012 passed by learned trial Court dismissing their applications for discharge.
4. Briefly stated, the common facts of the cases, which are necessary for the decision of the petitions in hand are that the State through Chief Agricultural Officer, Ludhiana had brought the complaints under Section 19(1) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order ) punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) on the allegations that accused No.1 are Coop. Agriculture Service Societies dealing with the distribution of fertilizer; that M/s Oswal accused No.2 is/was manufacturing unit for manufacturing Oswal DAP N18% P46% and responsible for the manufacturing/selling/stocking and distributing and offering for sale in Punjab State; that Vishnu Parsad Muddana accused No.3 was the person responsible under Clause 24 of Control Order for the conduct of business and quality of produce of manufacturer on behalf of Oswal Chemical & Fertilizers; that the Oswal DAP was supplied through Ludhiana MARKFED Branch, Jagraon (Ludhiana) directly from the Rake Point of the company to this society; that the primary agricultural coop. Societies had been exempted from obtaining the licenses of fertilizers, as such accused No.1 societies had been responsible for the distribution of low quality of DAP fertilizer; that accused Nos.2 and 3 are responsible for manufacturing/selling/stocking and distributing sub standard fertilizer of Oswal DAP under the Control Order, in that way, accused had violated the provisions of Clause 19(1)(a) of the Control Order since the samples of Oswal DAP N18% P46% (Oswal Bumper), which had been drawn by the competent officer as per rules and were then sent to Chief Agriculture Officer, Ludhiana, had been found not according to specifications of the Control Order as per analysis reports.
5. After receipt of result of the samples, show causes notices were served to accused No.1 societies, copies of analysis reports of the samples had been sent to that societies. Show cause notices were served upon MARKFED Branch, Jagraon and District Manager MARKFED, Ludhiana. Similarly, show cause notice along with copies of the analysis reports were sent to accused Nos. 2and 3. Replies were received, which were not found to be satisfactory, therefore, complaints were filed in the Court.
6. On presentation of the complaints by the complainant in the Court, finding good and sufficient grounds to proceed further against the accused for committing offence under Section 7 of the Act, accused were ordered to be summoned. The personal appearance of the complainant was exempted till further orders and he was permitted to appear through Additional Public Prosecutor.
7. Only accused No.1 had put in appearance in the Court, whereas the case kept being adjourned for procuring service of remaining accused time to time. In the meanwhile, the present petitions were filed, notice of the same were issued to the respondent, who put in appearance through counsel.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record. During pendency of the present petitio
