SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
API Crop Science Ltd. (M/s) & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M No. 11244 of 2020
Decided On : 16-09-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties :Mr. Achin Gupta Advocate , Mr. Neeraj Madaan Sr. DAG, Punjab

Liability for sub-standard fertilizer lies with the manufacturer, not the marketing company, especially when samples are taken from sealed packets.

Headnote:(A) Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 - Section 19 (a) (c) (v) - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 7 and Section 12 AA - Quashing of complaint - Petitioners challenged the complaint filed against them for alleged sub-standard fertilizer - Court found no violation of the provisions as the samples were taken from sealed packets and the liability lies with the manufacturer - Continuation of trial against petitioners would amount to misuse of process of law. (Paras 1, 3, 5, 7)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Powers of High Court - High Court can quash proceedings if continuation would be an abuse of process of law. (Paras 1, 7)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, a marketing company and its Regional Manager, were summoned in a complaint regarding sub-standard fertilizer. The complaint was filed after a significant delay, and the petitioners argued that they were not liable as the samples were taken from sealed packets.

Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the petitioners' arguments, stating that the complaint and summoning order were liable to be quashed as the petitioners had no occasion to tamper with the samples.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners could be held liable for the sub-standard fertilizer and if the complaint was filed in accordance with the law.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the liability for the quality of fertilizer lies with the manufacturer, not the marketing company, especially when the samples were taken from sealed packets. The delay in filing the complaint also raised concerns about its validity.

Result: Petition allowed; complaint and summoning order quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Amarjot Bhatti, J.:- Petitioners M/s API Crop Science Limited through its Regional Manager Hanuman Dutt and Hanuman Dutt in his personal capacity as Regional Manager filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint No. COMA-153 of 2019 dated 25.11.2019 titled “State of Punjab through Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur vs. M/s Sidhu Pesticide and others”, under Section 19 (a) (c) (v) of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Section 12 AA of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Annexure P-1) pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur and summoning order dated 25.11.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur vide which petitioners along with co-accused have been summoned under Section 19 (a) (c) (v) of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Section 12 AA of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Annexure P-2) and further to stay the proceedings qua petitioners pending in aforesaid Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are State of Punjab through Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur filed complaint under Section 19 (a) (c) (v) of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Section 12 AA of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against M/s Sidhu Pesticide, Kamal Wala Road, Mallanwala through its proprietor Balkar Singh and others in which petitioners are arrayed as accused No. 5 and 6. On 04.03.2013, Balwinder Singh, Fertilizer Inspector, Block Makhu visited the shop of M/s Sidhu Pesticide Kamal Wala Road, Mallanwala, District Ferozepur under the powers vested vide Clause 28 of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and inspected the premises. Balkar Singh, Proprietor of said firm was present at that time. After disclosing his (Fertilizer Inspector) identity, he intimated his desire to draw sample of Azospirillium Spp. (5x107CFU/gm), manufactured by M/s Antecedent Pabulum Inc and marketed by M/s API Crop Science Limited. He checked record and found 60 packets i.e. 3.5 Kg packet each bearing Batch No. GA- 07, date of manufacturing 02.12.2012 of Azospirillium Spp. in stock as per stock register of the firm. These packets were machine stitched. He prepared three Form J-1 and Balkar Singh, Proprietor signed these forms in token of drawing sample. Balwinder Singh prepared five Form P, three Form K1. He tried to associate some customer as a witness but nobody was willing to join. Fertilizer Inspector selected three sealed packets randomly from stock of 60 packets, according to Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. Samples were drawn by Fertilizer Inspector by taking original sealed packets as such and same were put in cloth bags and three Form P were also kept along with cloth bags and mouths of these cloth bags were tied with a strong twine separately to keep fertilizer sample packets airtight and same were sealed with letter F.1(4)ZIRA. One sealed sample and one Form J-1 was handed to Balkar Singh, Proprietor at the spot and other portions of sample along with Form J-1, Form K-1 and Form-P were deposited in the office of Chief Agriculture Officer by said Fertilizer Inspector, Block Makhu on 05.03.2013 vide letter No. 20 dated 05.03.2013, duly signed by Fertilizer Inspector and in the office of CAO, Ranbir Singh ADO (Enf.) received samples and retained under his possession and gave receipt to Balwinder Singh. CAO Paramjit Singh Sandhu sent one sample with other samples to Biofertilizer Testing Laboratory, Regional Centre of Organic Farming, Hisar, Haryana vide letter No. 1547 dated 06.03.2013 with Form K-1 through Rajinder Kumar, ASI, Ferozepur against proper receipt. Expert analyzed the samples and declared it sub-standard as only 3.0 x 106 Viable Cell Count was found instead of 5 x 107/gm (minimum). Copies of these reports were served upon dealer/proprietor, manufacturer and marketing company along with show cause notices through registe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top