HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.K.Phaujdar, J.C.Mishra
VISHWAKARMA
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 13 April 1998
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 780 of 1998
FERTILIZER CONTROL ORDER - SECTION 19, 21, 23, 30(3), 37 - SCHEDULE II, PART A, RULE 2 - ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, SECTION 3/7 - SALE OF NON-STANDARD FERTILIZER - PROCEDURE FOR DRAWING SAMPLES - COMMUNICATION OF ANALYSIS RESULTS - SERVICE OF ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, fertilizer dealers, were accused of violating the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, by selling non-standard fertilizer. The prosecution alleged that samples were taken from their shops and found to be non-standard. The petitioners challenged the First Information Report (FIR) on various grounds, including improper sampling and non-communication of analysis results.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners were guilty of violating the Control Order by stocking or exhibiting for sale non-standard fertilizer. The court found that the procedure for drawing samples was properly followed and that the petitioners were not entitled to sell non-standard fertilizer even if the analysis results were not communicated to them.
Issues: 1. Whether a dealer can be held guilty for the sale, stock, or offer for sale of non-standard fertilizer? 2. Whether the sample was drawn properly? 3. Whether the result of the analysis of the fertilizer was communicated to the petitioners? 4. Whether the FIR can be quashed due to non-communication of the analysis results?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that a dealer can be held guilty for the sale, stock, or offer for sale of non-standard fertilizer, as per Clause 19 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. 2. The court found that the procedure for drawing samples was properly followed, as per Part A of Schedule II of the Fertilizer (Control) Order. 3. The court held that the result of the analysis of the fertilizer was not communicated to the petitioners within the prescribed time, as per Clause 30(3) of the Control Order. 4. The court held that the FIR cannot be quashed due to non-communication of the analysis results, as the Control Order does not provide any opportunity to the dealer to get the fertilizer analyzed.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the petitions and directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested till the submission of the report under Section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
These petitions have been filed by the accused for a writ in the nature of the certiorari for quashing the First Information Report dated 28-2-98 in Crime No. 10 of 1998 under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act PS, Belghat, district Gorakhpur.
2. The prosecution case as contained in the impugned F. I. R. is that Deputy Divisional Agriculture Development Of ficer, Khajui, district Gorakhpur, respon dent No. 3, on 30-11-97 inspected the fer tilizer shops of M/s. Gupta Khad Bhandar, Bazar Lakhhura, Pakad Shankerpur and M/s. Janata Khad Bhandar, Kuti Bazar and took samples of D. A. P. and single super phosphate fertilizers. Vishwakarma, petitioner of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 780 of 1998
is proprietor of M/s. Janata Khad Bhandar whereas Jokhan Prasad, petitioner of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 781 of 1998 is proprietor of Gupta Khad Bhandar. The samples were sent for chemical analysis. On chemical analysis they were found to be
non-standard. Respondent No. 3 thereupon filed First Information Report against both the petitioners for violation of Fertilizer Con trol Order, 1985 punishable under Section 3/7, E. G. Act.
3. The petitioners have filed copy of Form j, which indicates that there were 88 bags of super phosphate single bag fer tilizer in the godown of Janata Khad Bhan dar Kutibazar. The petitioners appended their signature on the said Form j in token of admission that the samples were taken from bags and they were divided in three packets and thereafter properly kept and sealed. Both the petitioners were provided one sample each.
4. The petitioners have filed these petitions for quashing the First informa tion Report on the grounds inter alia that from the lot of 88 bags of fertilizer sample was taken from only one bag in violation of the mandatory provision. It is stated that the sample should have been taken at least from three bags. Secondly, it has been con tended that the bags were found stitched and sealed and, therefore, only the manufacturer is liable. The First Informa tion Report was lodged in violation of sub-Section (5) of Section 3 of the E. C. Act and Order XXXVII of the Fertilizer Con trol Orders. It has also been contended that result of the analysis was not com municated in accordance of Clauses 19,30 and 32 of the Fertilizer Control Orders, and, therefore, the report could not be lodged. It has also been stated that the fertilizer was not found to be adulterated and for non-standard fertilizer no report could be lodged.
5. Heard Sri Rahul Sripat, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A. G. A.
6. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the dealer can be held guilty for sale, stock or offer for sale or exhibit for sale of non-standard fertilizer. Clause 19 of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 provides that no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute any fertiliser or mixture of fertilisers which is not of prescribed standard. Sub-clause (c) provides that no person shall sell, offer for sale, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute any fertiliser the container whereof is not packed and marked in the manner laid down in this Order. Clause 21 provides that any container in which any fertilizer is packed shall bear only such particulars and nothing else as may, from time to time, be specified by the Controller in this behalf; and every container shall be so packed and sealed that the contents thereof cannot be tampered with without breaking the seal. It is provided that where fertiliser manufactured in India are packed in bags stitched by hand, such bags shall bear lead seals, so that the contents thereof cannot be tampered with without breaking the seals. However, lead sealing shall not be necessary if the bags are machine stitched or in case of fertilisers imported from abroad and packed in bags stitched by hand in such a manner that the contents thereof
AI
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.