Hans Raj and others vs State of Punjab

Ujagar Singh, J.—Hans Raj and others Petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the proceedings based on F. I. R. No. 149 dated 16-10-1986 of Police station City Fazilka as also the order framing charge dated 21-5-1988. The facts leading to this case are that the Petitioners are stated to be partners of M/s Kamboj Fertilizer and the firm is duly lienced dealer for the sale and purchase of fertilizer under a valid licence issued by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepore. The firm purchased Zink Sulphate from M/s Shambu Nath Chemical Works Amritsar vide bill No. 128 dated 20-6-1986 with batch No. F-27. The said fertilizer was sent by the manufacturers to the firm through M/S Raghu Bharati Transport Company and reached the firm on 21-6-1986 On 23-6-1986, a sample was taken from the said lot of fertilizer and the fact was reported by the firm to the manufacturers. The sample was found to be deficient by 1% in respect of the Zinc centents, by the analyst which were required to be 21 %. The mannfacturers vide their letter dated 28-6 1986 intimating the firm that fertilizer was upto the mark and the said batch number has been re-checked and the percentage of Zinc contents were found to be 21.744%. The firm was further advised to go on selling the fertilizer. The letter of the manufacturers is attached as annexure P-1.

The main point urged by the counsel for the Petitioners is that the sample was taken in ploythene bags whereas according to the rules the sample must be kept in clean, dry and airtight glass or other suitable container as has been held in various judgments of this Court. A similar view was taken by me in amended Cr. Misc. 3238-M/86 and Cr Misc. No. 2464 M/87 decided on 27-1-1988 reported in 1988 1 RCR 372(sic) as also in Cr. Misc. No. 6004-M/86 decided on the same day reported titled Sohan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab 1988 (1) RCR. 372 and Jarnail Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab 1988 (1) R.C.R. 374, respectively. Further allegation in the petition is that the quantity of the sample has to be more than 0.5 Kg whereas the weight was not mentioned by the analyst. As it was not noted on the sample and that the evidence about the weight is that it was about "one Kg.", there is no contradiction on behalf of the State about the facts mentioned above.

In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted. The F.I.R. No. 149(sic) dated 16-10-1986 as also the proceedings in pursuance thereof including the order framing charge against the Petitioners are, therefore, quashed.