COMMON ORDER:

1. Criminal Petition No.1929 of 2023 is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 and A3 in C.C.No.124 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Boath.

2. Criminal Petition No.1984 of 2023 is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 and A3 in C.C.No.12 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Boath.

3. Both these Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioners/A2 and A3 aggrieved by their implication in C.C.Nos.124 and 12 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 420 r/w 34 of IPC on the basis of fertilizer being found in the premises, which fertilizer was not in accordance with the specifications in the Fertilizer (Control) Order and also for the reason of finding fertilizer banned by the State Government (Crl.P.Nos.1929 and 1984 of

2022).

4. Since the grounds raised in both the petitions are one and the same, both the petitions are disposed by way of this Common Order.

5. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt.Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the police are barred from investigating into said cases wherein selling of fertilizers, if found which were not of quality or banned fertilizers, can only be done under the provisions of violation of Fertilizers (Control) Orders, 1985 and not under Indian Penal Code and cannot be prosecuted under Section

420 of IPC. He relied on the following judgments: i) Judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition No.857 of 2021, dated

05.03.2021;

ii) Ramaola alias Easthar Bhagyavathi and others v. Jacob Nava Maniraja and others

2013 (1) ALT 87 (D.B)

iii) District and Sessions Judge, Guntur and others v. State of A.P2 iv) Farmers Service Co-operative Society, Kothapally Medak and others v. State Government of Andhra Pradesh and argued that the prosecution cannot be held to be in accordance with law. For the said reasons, the charge sheets have to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposing the applications for quashing would submit that the petitioners were indulging in selling the fertilizers which do not have standards of quality prescribed and in the other case, banned fertilizers. The said acts of the petitioners would amount to an offence of cheating farmers, for which reason, both the applications should be dismissed.

7. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

2 [2000 (1) ALT (CRI.) 103 (D.B) [2006 (2) ALT (CRI.) 359 (S.B)

8. Having perused the record, in both the cases, fertilizers were in fact found in the premises of the petitioners. Manufacturer of the said fertilizers, wholesaler and retailer are all made as accused. The fertilizer was not of standard quality and it was banned by the State Government.

9. The police, though conducted seizures in the said premises and seized fertilizers and also sent them for examination, however, failed to examine any purchaser of the said fertilizer or any farmer, who had purchased the said fertilizer resulting in loss to his crop. There is no necessity to cause wrongful loss by using fertilizer, however, mere stocking of fertilizer cannot be held to be amounting to an offence of cheating punishable under section 420 of IPC.

10. To attract an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC, it is necessary that the prosecution proves the following:

i) that there was deliberate misstatement made;

ii) believing said misstatement person should have been induced;

iii) such induced persons should have parted with property causing wrongful loss.

11. Unless the three ingredients are proved, the question of any act falling within the four corners of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC does not arise.

12. As already discussed, the fertilizer was found in the premises and the prosecution has not made any effort to examine any person who had in fact purchased the said fertilizer on the basis of any false claims made by these petitioners. In the