IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER, J.
Gorantla Satyanarayana – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana, Rep. through Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another - Respondents
Criminal Petition No.3117 of 2022
Decided on : 21-03-2023
Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 - Sections 12, 13(1)(a)(b)(c) – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 420, 120(B), 482 R/w 34 – Offence of Cheating – Criminal Conspiracy – Common intention - Charged - Complainant is Mandal Agricultural Officer, who on information raided the premises of petitioner, having information about fertilizer being sold along with independent witnesses and other officials - Officer found that petitioner was making fertilizer and stored raw material of bio products - Said bio products were totally worth Rs.94.00 lakhs - Fertilizers were being made without any licence and without having any label - Material was seized on suspicion that such products were being made and sold to farmers - Having conducted panchanama, sample collected during search were also sent for analysis - Said samples which were sent for analysis were found to be “not of standard quality” - It was further found that petitioner/A1 was purchasing chemicals from Basheerbagh area of Hyderabad and labeling them with various brands and selling them to farmers - Products that are being sold are in violation of directions of this Court in W.P.No.25293 of 201 - Products found were affecting the growth of yield of crops as such, farmers were being cheated - According to Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 under Chapter VII-Enforcement authorities, Clause 26 and 26-A, State Government shall appoint Registering Authorities for purpose of Order and also prescribed limits of local area within which each of such registering authority shall exercise jurisdiction. (Para 9)
Finding of Court :
Complainant J.Radha, is person who conducted inspection, search and seizure of bio material and other products in premises of accused along with officers of Agricultural Department, Vigilance Enforcement Officers - Said Vigilance Enforcement officers or Agricultural Department Officers are not examined during course of investigation by police nor cited in list of witnesses filed along with charge sheet - Complainant is not a notified Inspector appointed specifically by State or Central Government in limits where search and seizure has taken place - In absence of any notification appointing complainant as an Inspector for said area, such inspection, search and seizure is illegal - It is not case that other members of team either from Agricultural Department or other Vigilance Enforcement Officers were in any manner notified as an Inspector under Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 - Search, inspection and seizure are in violation of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, as it is without authorization - For said reason of the illegality in search, inspection and drawl of samples without authority, Court deems it appropriate to quash proceedings against petitioner as inspection and seizure are in violation of clauses of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985.
Result : Criminal Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.1 in C.C.No.415 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mahabubnagar.
2. The complainant is the Mandal Agricultural Officer, who on information raided the premises of the petitioner on 17.02.2020, having information about the fertilizer being sold along with independent witnesses and other officials. The Officer found that the petitioner was making fertilizer and stored raw material of bio products. The said bio products were totally worth Rs.94.00 lakhs. The fertilizers were being made without any licence and without having any label. The material was seized on suspicion that such products were being made and sold to farmers. Having conducted panchanama, the samples collected during the search were also sent for analysis. The said samples which were sent for analysis were found to be “not of standard quality”.
3. During the course of investigation, it was further found that the petitioner/A1 was purchasing chemicals from Basheerbagh area of Hyderabad and labeling them with various brands and selling them to farmers. The products that are being sold are in violation of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.25293 of 2014. The products found were affecting the growth of yield of crops as such, the farmers were being cheated. For the reason of cheating innocent farmers and earning money running into crores, charge sheet was filed by the police for the offences under Sections 420, 120(B), 482 R/w 34 of IPC & Sections 12, 13(1)(a)(b)(c) of Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the products are bio-friendly and protecting the crops from various viral and bacterial infections. Since the bio products are not included in the schedule of the Insecticides Act, 1968 or any other Act, including Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, the question of taking any licence or permission from any authorities does not arise. In accordance with the order of this Court in W.P.No.25293 of 2014, the petitioner was submitting information about bio products manufactured by him vide letter dated 26.11.2017. He further submits that this Court in the above Writ Petition has given certain directions in cases of bio products. The 2nd respondent has violated the directions in the writ petition and raided the premises of the petitioner. However, after alleged seizure, show-cause notice dated 15.02.2021 was sent stating that two samples namely Shine and Pink Killer contains pesticide residue and sought explanation of this petitioner. There is no evidence of seizure of such products and for the reason of there being violation of the guidelines of this Court in the Writ Petition, the criminal proceedings cannot be continued.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that all the guidelines issued by the Commissioner of Agriculture and also the directions of this Court in W.P.No.25293 of 2014 have not been followed and there is violation of the provision of IPC and Fertilizer (Control) Order, for which reason, proceedings have to be continued against the petitioner.
6. The record reveals that the complainant is Zonal Agricultural Officer, Waddepally Mandal. She along with Vigilance and Enforcement Officers, Agricultural Department Officers as a team conducted inspections on 17.02.2020. The team found that this petitioner and others were manufacturing and storing fertilizer, pesticides and other raw material without labels. It was also found that the said fertilizer/medicines/pesticides were being manufactured. Accordingly, the said fertilizers and pesticides and raw material were taken into custody by preparing panchanama. Thereafter, on 20.02.2020, i.e., three days after the alleged inspection and seizure, complaint was lodged with the Inspector of Police, P.S.Shanthinagar, Jogulamba Gadwal District. The said compliant was registered by the Inspector of
SupremeToday
Point of Law : Court deems it appropriate to quash proceedings against the Petitioner as the inspection and seizure are in violation of the clauses of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985.
Liability for sub-standard fertilizer lies with the manufacturer, not the marketing company, especially when samples are taken from sealed packets.
the absence of any material to show that petitioner is responsible for the quality of fertilizers seized, the proceedings now initiated against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of la....
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.