IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sanjay Vashisth, J.
Raghbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRA-S-1304-SB-2005 (O&M)
Decided On : 11-01-2023
Fertilizer Control Ordrr - Violation of Articlr 19 rrad with Articlr 21 of thr Constitution ofIndia - Regulation 19 of thr Control Ordrr is hrrrby struck down - Prosrcution basrd upon a pircr oflrgislation, which has not brrn ablr to stand thr trst of scrutiny, arr bound to br quashrd - No offrncr undrr Srction 7(1)(a) of Essrntial Commoditirs Act, 1955 is made out qua the petitioner - Complaint and summoning order quashed
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an authorized person of the dealer firm, was accused of dealing with sub-standard fertilizer. However, the court found that the petitioner had no responsibility for the sub-standard fertilizer and quashed the complaint and summoning order against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not responsible for the sub-standard fertilizer and quashed the complaint and summoning order against him.
Issues: The issues revolved around the responsibility of the petitioner for the sub-standard fertilizer and the delay in filing the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, as an authorized person of the dealer firm, was not responsible for the sub-standard fertilizer. The court also noted the delay in filing the complaint and the lack of evidence supporting the charges against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court quashed the complaint and summoning order against the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Vashisth, J. - Appellant - Ragbir Singh filed present appeal challenging judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.07.2005, passed by learned Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, in E.C. Complaint No. 16 of 03.05.1996, recording conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act'), for violating the provisions contained in Clause 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 (for short, 'Control Order'), issued under Section 3 of the Act. Appellant was sentenced as under:-
Under Section | Sentence | Fine | In Default |
7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act | 1 year RI | Rs. 1,000/- | 2 months RI |
2. Co-accused of the appellant, namely, Gurdip Singh Chahal (respondent No. 2), who allegedly was Shift Incharge of M/s Agro Chem. Punjab Limited, Village Singhpura, District Patiala, and responsible for compliance of Clause 24 of the Control Order, and Kewal Singh Dhillon (respondent No. 3), who was Managing Director of M/s Agro Chem. Punjab Limited, Village Singhpura, District Patiala, were acquitted, giving them benefit of doubt. Thus, the appellant was the sole convict in the present case, who was Dealer and the sole proprietor of the said firm.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of complaint, as noticed from paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment of Trial Court, says as under:-
'2. The facts giving rise to the instant complaint are that Raghbir Singh accused no. 1 was the sole proprietor of M/s. Gill Brothers, Kot Fatuhi and the said firm was dealing with the business of fertilizer, as per the retail dealers registration certificate No, 41/143 valid upto 31.3.93 which was renewed on 1.4.93 for further three years. Balvinder Singh Agriculture officer was notified as Fertilizer Inspector vide Punjab Govt. Notification 7643-Agri.II (X) / 72 / 32532 dated 28.12.92 under clause 27 of the Control order, as such, he was duly authorised to exercise his powers as per section 28 of the control order to draw the sample of fertilizer. On 29.12.93, Balwinder Singh Chela, Fertiliser Inspector accompanied by Kulbir Singh Fertilizer Inspector Kot Fatuhi, drew sample of Single Super Phosphate (powder) 16% Jat Brand manufactured by M/s. Agro Chem Punjab Limited, Singhpura, distt. Patiala, Punjab. The said test sample was perfectly drawn absolutely in consonance with the Procedure prescribed under the Fertilizer Control Order in the presence of Raghbir Singh Sole Proprietor of the firm M/s Gill Brothers Kot Fatuhi, Hoshiarpur. There was a stock of 63 bags weighing 50 kgs. each of Single Super Phosphate 16% (powder) Jat Brand, He selected two bags at random according to the table provided in the Control Order. All the bags, out of which the sample was drawn, were of the same brand i.e. Jat Brand. Single Super Phosphate bags were stored, arranged and kept systematically in rows in the shop. The sample was taken with the help of sampling probe, made of brass which was clean and dry.
3. The fertilizer was taken out from the two selected bags of Single Super Phosphate, Jat Brand by inserting sampling probe from one corner to another diagonally, and the fertilizer so taken out was put on dry polythene sheet which was weighing approximately 4 to 5 kgs. Then it was spread, mixed thoroughly and made homogenous with the help of hard paper and was divided into four equal parts. Then he removed two diagonally opposite parts and such operation was repeated till the composite sample remained approximately 1.5 kgs. and then it was divided into three approximately equal parts weighing about 400 grams each. Each of the sample was immediately transferred into clean and dry thick gauged polythene bags and each test sample so prepared was further put into empty cloth bag along with form-J which was clean and dry. Raghbir Singh proprietor ofthe firm, who was present at the time of drawing sample, also appended his signatures on seizure memo i.e. form-J. Five copies of form-J were prepared at the spot by the Fertilizer Inspector Balwinder Singh who dul
Arun Kumar and Others versus State of Punjab; 1995 (3) RCR(Cri) 231
Statr of Punjab vs. Jagdish Chand and anothrrrrportrd as 2004 (2) RCR(Cri) 478
Liability for sub-standard fertilizer lies with the manufacturer, not the marketing company, especially when samples are taken from sealed packets.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the sampling procedure as prescribed in Schedule II of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 198....
The court upheld the conviction under the Essential Commodities Act while granting probation due to the appellant's age, a lack of criminal history, and the considerable delay since the offense.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.