1. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.257/14 registered at P.S. Badarwas, District Shivpuri, for the offence punishable under sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (In short Act of 1955).

3. As per prosecution case, complainant Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Block Badarwas has lodged the report at Police Station Badarwas that sample of Vantolite Sulphur 90% Batch No.BNS 011 taken on 25.1.2014, which was supplied by Aviral Bio-Tech and Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd., Mandideep, Raisen & same was sent for examination at Quality Control Laboratory, Bhopal, was found sub-standard. On this report, police has registered offence under section 3/7 of Act of 1955 against the applicant who is the Manager of quality control.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has falsely been implicated for the alleged offence. He has no direct or indirect connection with the alleged offence. Applicant’s company is a registered company and quality of product has been examined time to time and applicant is not responsible for substandard fertilizers. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that fertilizer does not come within the definition of food. He further submitted that offence registered against the applicant is bailable one,in spite of that he is apprehending his arrest in connection with the alleged offence. The applicant belongs to a reputed family and he is Quality Control Manager and there is no chance of his absconsion, therefore, he prays for the bail under section 438 of CrPC.

5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the aforesaid submission on the ground that there is prima-facie evidence available against the applicant and prays for dismissing the same.

6. Firstly, I would like to reproduce the relevant provision of Act of 1955 to clear the position as to whether offence under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is bailable or non-bailable.

7. section 10A of the Act of 1955 reads as under :

“Offence to be cognizable and bailable notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 every offence punishable under the Act shall be ‘cognizable’

”(xxx)2 &

“(xxx)2 & vf/kfu;e Ø-92 lu 1976 }kjk nl o”kksZa ds fy, rRi’pkr~ vfèkfu;e Ø-18 lu~ 1981 }kjk ¼fn- 1-9-1982 ls½ nl ds LFkku ij iUnzg o”kksZa ds fy,] ‘kCn ^^vkSj vtekurh;^^ LFkkfir fd;s x, FksA fnukad

31-8-1997 dks iUnzg o”kZ iw.kZ gks tkus ds dkj.k /kkjk vius ewy :i esa LFkkfirA^^

8. From the bare perusal of aforesaid section it appears that by the Essential Commodities (Special Provision) Act-1981 section 10A of the original Act of 1955 was amended and after the word ‘cognizable’, the words ‘and non-bailable’ were introduced. The said Act of 1981 was to remain in force for a period of 5 years only from the date of commencement of 1981 Act. Thereafter by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Continuance Act, 1987 para-2 of the preamble of 1981 to the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act,1981 was amended and in place of 5 years, period of 10 years was substituted. Thereafter by Third Amendment, the said period of continuance was made to 15 years. After expiry of 15 years no amendment Act was brought into force but certain ordinance were issued. The last ordinance was issued in the year 1988, which lost its life and efficacy by lapse of time. Thereafter no Act or ordinance has been issued to continue the Provisions of 1981 Act.

9. When 1981 Act has lost its life, then any amendment incorporated by the said Act which was to remain in force for a period of 5,10 or 15 years would come to an end and additional words ‘and non-bailable’ shall become ‘non-est’ and ‘otiose’ section 10A without the said amendment shall now be read as “notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure-1973, every offence punishable und