IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.90 of 2000 BETWEEN:-

1. BHAGWAN SINGH & ORS. (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. DULESINGH S/O RUGNATHSINGH, AGED 40 YEARS, VILLAGE SOMGURADIYA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS (BY SHRI GIRISH DESAI - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT/STATE (SHRI HEMANT SHARMA – GOVT. ADVOCATE)

Reserved on : 23.08.2023 Pronounced on : 01.09.2023 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgement, coming on for pronouncement this day, this Court pronounced the following:

JUDGEMENT This appeal has been preferred by the appellants u/S 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) against the impugned judgment dated 31.12.1999 passed by the Special Judge, Indore in Special Case No.32/1996, whereby the appellants have been convicted u/S 3 r/w S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1955) and sentenced to 6 months of Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- to each with default stipulation of 1 month of rigorous imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.11.1995, Fertilizer Inspector G.P. Rajput had conducted an inquiry at village Songuradia and found that appellant Bhagwan Singh resident at village Umariya Khurd has illegaly sold fertilizer to 19 farmers with aid of appellant Dule Singh without any valid registration certificate. The fertilizer was also sub-standard and adulterated. Thereby the appellants violated clause 7, 19(1)(a) & (c) of the Fertilizer (Control) order 1985, therefore, offence u/s 3 r/w S.7 of the Act, 1955 has been registered against the appellants.

3. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of Special Judge, Indore. The learned trial Court after analysing the evidence, it had not found proved that the fertilizers were sub-standard and adulterated, but it was found that the appellants have sold the fertilizers to 19 farmers without having any valid registration certificate. Therefore, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is not in consonance with the law and the learned trial Court has erred by wrongly convicting and sentencing the appellants. Both the independent witnesses named Sardar Singh (PW-3) and Shankarlal (PW- 4) have admitted in their cross-examination that the appellants are not into business of selling fertilizer. The appellants had brought the fertilizer for their own use in bulk quantity, but as some portion of it was left unused, so they had sold the unused quantity of fertilizer. Therefore, the aforesaid act of the appellants does not come in violation of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment and prayed for the rejection of the appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

7. In the light of evidence and submissions advanced by counsel for both the parties, the point for consideration is as to whether the findings of the trial Court of convicting and sentencing the appellants is incorrect in the eyes of laws and facts.

8. At the outset, the statement of Fertilizer Inspector G.P. Rajput (PW-2) is worth referring. G.P. Rajput (PW-2) stated that on 14.11.1995 alongwith Agriculture Development Officer and other officials inspected at village Songuradia. They were told by the 19 farmers, upon questioning them, that appellant Dule Singh had given fertilizer to appellant Bhagwan Singh to sell them and they had purchased the fertilizers from the appellant Bhagwan Singh. Appell