HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 ****

M/s Mosaic India P.Ltd. & Anr. ... Petitioners VS.

State of Punjab ... Respondent ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. NK Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG Punjab ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)

(1). This petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the criminal complaint No.COMA/40/2021 dated 17.09.2021 titled as “State vs. M/s Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors.” (Annexure P1) under Section 19(a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 (in short, the FCO) read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act (in short, the Act) punishable under Section 7 of the said Act qua the petitioners as well as the summoning order dated 23.11.2021 (Annexure P2) and the order dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure P11) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(2). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Fertilizer Inspector drew the sample of the Fertilizer in question from the Original Packed bag of 25Kg from the Dealer Firm as supplied by the petitioners/importer and marketing Company. He submits that the petitioners imported the said fertilizer Potassium Magnesium Sulphate in India on 14.08.2017 and at that time the quality of the said fertilizer was analysed by the Assistant Director Fertilizer Quality Control, Ministry of Agriculture &

Farmers Welfare (Deptt. Of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare), Central Fertilizer Quality Control & Trading Institute, Faridabad (Haryana) on 14.08.2017 and as per their report, the fertilizer met the FCO specifications which was supported by the laboratory of Inspectorate America Corporation, Agri Division, Webster, Texas (Annexure P-12). He then urged that the petitioners, who are the importer & supplier company and its employee are not the manufacturer of the fertilizer in question and therefore, they cannot be proceeded against for the alleged contravention of Regulation

19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order.

(3). Another argument raised is that at the time of the taking sample of fertilizer in question, the mandatory requirement as provided in Schedule II of FCO has not been complied with by the fertilizer Inspector while taking the sample that is why there is variations of the three laboratories while testing the fertilizer in question. Further, as per the Government Laws, no fertilizer can be sent to market if the same is imported one, unless the same has been analysed at the port and thus the petitioners cannot be held at fault because the sample of fertilizer in question has already been passed by the Central Laboratory, Faridabad, moreso when there are conflicting reports of three laboratories and such reports are not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such, the petitioners being importer and supplier are not responsible for the quality of the fertilizer and the complaint (Anx.P-1) as well as the other proceedings qua petitioners is liable to be quashed.

(4). Learned counsel contends that the complaint as well as the consequential proceedings against the petitioners are bad in law for the reason that the analysis report is of dated 27.11.2018 and the last report is dated

27.08.2019, but the present criminal complaint (Annexure P-1) was filed on 14.09.2021 i.e. after more than 2 years and the delay in filing the complaint has not been explained by the respondents and in the present case the offence, if any, committed by the petitioners is punishable for one year and the prosecution could be launched within a period of one year only as per provision of Section 12A of the Act. He then submits that under section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, the maximum punishment is one year and fine if the contravention of clause (h)(i), sub-section (2) of section 3 and for other clauses, the punishment of imprisonment may extend upto seven years, however, in the complaint, there is no reference to any c