203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-689-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision: 01.03.2025 M/s Indo Gulf Fertilizers Ltd. and another ... Petitioners Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Viren Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

*******

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. Present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) [now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’)] seeking quashing of criminal complaint bearing No.COMA/111/2019 dated 20.03.2019 registered under Clause 19 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 (for short ‘FC Order’) read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (for short ‘EC Act’) punishable under Section 7 of EC Act (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order dated 20.03.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 11.05.2017, the Fertilizer Inspector visited the shop premises of M/s Brij Lal and sons, Grain Market Jagraon, Ludhiana. The Fertilizer Inspector took the sample of a product i.e. Zinc Sulphate 33% Monohydrate, bearing Batch No.CCM16J1803, which was manufactured in October 2016 by M/s Chakardhar Chemical Private Limited, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradeshand and marketed by the petitioner. Two machine stitched sealed bags of 05 kgs each were selected from a lot of 22 bags, in accordance with the procedure laid down in EC Act. Thereafter, he prepared sealed test samples out of composite fertilizer sample material at the spot on 11.05.2017 and were sent for forensic examination to State Notified Fertilizers Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana. Since the analysis report proved that the product was unfit to be sold, complaint (supra)

was filed.

3. Learned counsel of the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were only marketing the fertilizer and they have no role in its production. The present complaint has been instituted on the allegation that the sample of fertilizer was found to be not according to specifications. He refers to Form ‘J’ (Annexure P-3) to submit that the samples were drawn from the machine stitched bags. As such, the samples were taken from the original packaging as provided by the manufacturer. Moreover, nothing indicates that the packaging was tampered with. Further, learned trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to try the complaint (supra).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that for any alleged shortfall in any nutrient content of a fertilizer, it is only the manufacturer, who can be said to be liable and not its marketers, in case where there is no allegation of tampering with the packing etc. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments rendered by this Court in Kehar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, CRM-M-8021-2010 decided on 15.09.2011; Tata Chemicals Ltd. and another Vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-42904-2013 decided on 24.9.2014; Manoj Grover Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-4582-2008 decided on 15.12.2009; Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M- 16232-2010 titled as decided on 09.11.2010 and Kehar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-34742-2011 decided on 01.09.2014

5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the petitioners on the ground that the probable defence of the petitioners cannot be looked into by this Court at this stage, as it is a matter of trial and only on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, a conclusion can be drawn by learned trial Court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that admittedly, the samples in question had been drawn from the stitched bags, as provided by the manufacturer-M/s Chakardhar Chemicals Private Limited. The petitioners were only concerned with marketing of the sa