High Courts

Charan Dass vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 15 January 1987 · Citation: (1987) 1 AICLR 46

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pritpal Singh, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5000-M of 1986
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 325 words

Pritpal Singh, J.

1.

A sample of fertilizer was taken by the Fertilizer Inspector on December 9, 1980 from the business premises of the petitioners. It was sent for analysis to the Fertilizer Testing Laboratory, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, and it was analysed on August 24, 1982. The sample was declared substandard. In the wake of the report of the Analyst a First Information Report No. 7 dated 10.1.1983 was registered in Police Station Longowal, District Sangrur, under Section 12A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with clause 13 of the Fertilizer Control JUDGMENT 1957. The petitioners in the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have sought the quashing of the said First Information Report.

2.

It is not disputed that the sample of the fertilizer was put in three polythene bags on December 9, 1980. It was analysed more than 11/2 years thereafter on August 24, 1982. Under Schedule II of the Fertilizer (Control) JUDGMENT 1957, the sample must not be taken at a place exposed to weather, it shall be placed in suitable clean, dry, and airtight glass or other suitable containers, and stored in shade. This mandatory provision was admittedly not compelled with in the present case. As per clause 4(2)(ii) of the said Schedule II, each test sample shall be immediately transferred to a suitable container, as described under 1(e) and 1(f), provided with a tight fitting stopper or lid so that the original composition of the fertilizer remains unchanged. In the present case, however, the sample was put in polythene bags and they remained in the same condition for more than 11/2 years till analysis. In view of this improper taking of sample in violation of the mandatory provisions of law, the impugned First Information Report deserves to be quashed.

3.

For aforesaid reasons, the abovementioned First Information Report and the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof in the trial Court are quashed.

JUDGMENT accordingly.