The main legal point established in the judgment is that the responsibility of the accused cannot be conclusively determined at the initial stage of the investigation, and disputed questions of facts do not warrant the quashing of the FIR.

JUDGMENT

1. Through this petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary powers of this Court to quash FIR No. 552/2019 registered at Police Station Manvar, District Dhar (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C., Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1995 and Clause 7 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 for cheating by supplying less quantity per bag than the standard quantity promised to supply of Single Super Phosphate (SSP) fertilizer and thereby causing wrongful loss to the farmers for wrongful gain to self.

2. Succinctly stated facts giving rise to the present petition are that on receiving complaints from the farmers complainant Fertiliser Inspector (FI), Development Block Manawar Hari Singh Dawar alongwith Sr. Agri. Development Officer Sukhlal Alwa conducted surprise inspection on 23.06.2019 of Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Manawar and checked weight of the bags of fertiliser manufactured by R.M. Phosphate and Chemicals Ltd. MIDC Industrial Area II, Dhule, Maharashtra and marketed by the petitioner company. On n average 1 kg weight per sack was found to be less than the declared weight of sacks of fertiliser supplied by the petitioner. Therefore, the FI lodged the FIR under challenge.

3. The sole ground of the petitioner is that they are not the manufacturer of the fertiliser. They had only supplied the same as received from the manufacturer in machine stitched condition. According to them, they have an agreement with the manufacturer that he will be responsible for any shortcoming in the material supplied through the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners are not responsible for any deficit in declared quantity of sacks and are not liable to be prosecuted and, hence, the FIR qua them be quashed.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has asserted that shortage found in surprise inspection was about 1 Kg per bag of 50 kg. Thus, on every 50 sacks supplied by the petitioners, they have saved one sack of fertiliser. Total 4400 bags of fertilizer were supplied to the concerned Cooperative Societies, thus, if calculated on an average 1 Kg pilferage per sack, the total shortage will be 4400 Kg. This short quantity is related to only one sector of supply, if the total supply made by the petitioner is taken into consideration, then it will amount to lakhs of tons. This is a white collar crime, in which, the people in dominating position are cheating the poor farmers by supplying less than the declared quantity and hence are earning huge profits. The inspection carried out was only a sample inspection and it does not mean that this is a case of pilferage of just a few kilos; rather it is a fraud not only with the farmers, but also with the Society and with the Nation. It is a crime against public at large and against larger interest of the Society. There is prima facie sufficient evidence and the material available on record to proceed with the prosecution of the petitioner along with the manufacturer.

5. It is argued that as per definition given in clause (f) of Section 2 of the Fertiliser Control order, 1985 "Dealer" means a person carrying on the business of selling fertilisers whether wholesale or retail and includes a manufacturer. Section 19 of the Control Order, 1985 prescribes that no person can sell for himself or for any other person any fertiliser with a fake claim. In the present case, the fertiliser was supplied with a claim that each sack contains 50 kg quantity and this claim was found false, therefore, the petitioners, who are dealer and had supplied less than declared quantity of fertiliser cannot shirk their responsibility by stating that they are not the manufacturer.

6. It is emphasized that it is a disputed question of facts whether the pilferage was at the manufacturer's end or at the supplier's end, but it is a fact that on a surprise check, quantity of fertiliser supplied by the petitioners was found to be substantially less than the