1. These three revision petitions arise out-of different cases against the present petitioner. As they raise common questions of law, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The facts on the basis of which the petitioner has been prosecuted under section 3 rlw section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and violation of section 19 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, in the aforesaid three different cases are also more or less similar.

3. It is alleged that Raghuveer Saran Gupta non-petitioner No.2 was proprieter of M/s. Raghuveer Saran Amn Kumar, a dealer in fertilizers at Dinara (326/96). Satish Kumar Jain, non-petitioner No. 2•was proprieter of M/s. Vivek Traders, a dealer of fertilizers at Pohri (327/96). Hukum Chand Nagaria, non-petitioner No.2 was proprieter of M/s. J wala Prasad Hukum Chand, a dealer in fertilizers at Sirsaud (328/96). There was a stock of Vishwas Brand Single Super Phosphate (In short SSP) with the said proprieters and sample was taken on different dates in the aforesaid three cases and it was sent to the fertilizer analyst for examination. A report dated 4.9.95 was received and according to the report sample was