Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo

showing name of responsible officer of accused No.3 -

Company as responsible officer.

The memo is placed on record.

The petitioner/accused No.1 has filed this petition

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973,

(for

short,

'Cr.P.C.')

praying

to

quash

the

proceedings in Criminal Case No.4414 of 2023 for the

offences

punishable

under

Clause

8

and

Clause

19(c)(i)(v)(vi) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, and

under

Sections

3 and

7(1)(a)(ii)

of

the

Essential

- 3 -

Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'E.C. Act'), pending on

the file of the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Shorapur, Yadgir.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent-State

3. The factual matrix of the case are that on

24-11-2022 at 4.30 p.m., the complainant visited the shop

of the petitioner and found stock of Kranti (contains

Organic Zinc 9.12%) which is neither a fertilizer as per

Schedule-1 Part-A or Schedule-IV Part-A of the Fertilizer

(Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) Control Order, 1985. Hence,

he seized the stock and reported to the Deputy

Commissioner, Yadgir, as per Section 6A of the E.C. Act.

After seizing the stock, on 25-11-2022, the complainant

sent the sample for analysis to the Deputy Director of

Agriculture, Fertilizer Control Laboratory, Shivajinagara,

Belagavi. As per the Laboratory Reports given by the

Deputy Director of Agriculture, the said Kranti Sample

- 4 -

contains only 9.12% Zinc as against the label claim of

12% Zinc. Hence, the complainant issued show-cause

notice to accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner and accused

No.2 gave reply to the show-cause notice. On 14-8-2023,

the complainant, without accepting the reply given to the

show-cause notice, has filed this complaint.

4. As per the complaint, accused Nos.1 to 3

committed the offences by selling substandard fertilizer,

which is in violation of the aforesaid Rules.

5. The trial Court after receipt of the complaint, took

cognizance of the offences alleged against accused Nos.1

to 3. Taking exceptions to the same, accused No.1-Dealer

of the Fertilizer Company, has filed this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended

that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed

the alleged offences. He is the Dealer of the Fertilizer

Company and he is no where connected with the

production of fertilizers, nor does he has any domain or

- 5 -

control over the quality of the fertilizers. The samples were

collected from sealed bags and hence, absolutely there are

no specific allegations against the petitioner regarding his

culpability of any adulteration or substandard fertilizers

contained in the stitched bags. Hence, he prayed to allow

the petition.

7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader has contended that there are prima-facie material

to show that the petitioner has committed the alleged

offences. Hence, she prayed to reject the petition.

8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions

of both sides and perused the material available on record.

9. On perusal of the record, it reveals that on

24-11-2022, the complainant visited the shop of the

petitioner/accused No.1, took sample of fertilizers and sent

the same to the Laboratory and referee sample re-analysis

and came to know that the seized sample was not upto the

specifications

and

it

was

substandard.

Hence,

the

- 6 -

complainant lodged the complaint against accused No.1,

Dealer of the Fertilizer Company, accused No.2 is a person

responsible for manufacturing Kranti (organic zinc 12%)

and accused No.3 is the Company responsible for

manufacturing Kranti fertilizer.

10. On perusal of the entire complaint, there is no

specific allegation laid against the petitioner as to how he

is responsible for the adulteration of the fertilizers or how

he is responsible for the substandard fertilizers