Parkash Wanti and ors. vs State of Punjab

A.S. Nehra, J.

This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 12101988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, and the first information report No. 193 dated 14101986 registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act at Police Station Guruharsahai, Tehsil and District Forozepore.

The first information report was recorded on the basis of a letter written by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepore, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepore. According to the allegations mentioned therein, Inspector Agriculture took a sample of Super Phosphate on 2771986 from Messrs Galhotra Trading Company, Guruharsahai. The said sample was sent on 2471986 to the Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana, for testing. As per report of the Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, the aforesaid sample was found to be nonstandard as active ingredient was 14.89 per cent instead of 16 per cent as prescribed for this fertilizer. Ved Parkash as to the partner of Messrs Galhotra Trading Company was challaned.

The State filed an application for summoning the petitioners and Managing Director, Bharat Chemicals and Fertilizers as accused persons. This application was moved on the ground that only Ved Parkash accused has been challaned, who is the partner of Messrs Galhotra Trading Company and this firm has received fertilizer, through Messrs Thakur Dass, Gauri Shankar, Guruharsahai, whose partners are Gian Chand amd Smt. Parkash Wanti, and Ashok Kumar is a `Karinda'' of the said firm; and that since the fertilizer was manufactured by Bharat Chemicals and Fertilizers, therefore the Managing Director of this manufacturing firm and the petitioners are equally liable along with Ved Parkash for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. This application was allowed and the petitioners were ordered to be summoned by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, on 12101988.

It is settled law that in order to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, for the purposes of quashment, only the allegations made in the impugned First Information Report have to he considered, and the correctness or otherwise of such allegations cannot be examined.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no allegation whatsoever has been made in the first information report concerning the manner in which the sample of Super Phosphate was taken by the Inspector in the instant case. He has further submitted that neither the quantity of the fertilizer taken for the purposes of test is mentioned nor the container or the type of bag in which the sample of fertilizer was put, finds mention in the first information report; that according to Schedule II of the Fertilizer Control JUDGMENT 1985, the sample should be kept in suitable, clean dry and airtight glass or screwed hard polythene bottle of about 400 grams capacity, or in a thick gauged polythene bag and that thereafter the said container should be put in a cloth bag which is to be scaled with the Inspector''s seal after putting inside the detailed description as specified in Form `J`.

Faced with this situation it was submitted on behalf of the State that the sample was taken in a clean, dry and airtight thick gauged polythene bag which is a suitable container and is permissible vide Schedule II (Part ''A'') 1(e) of the Fertilizer Control JUDGMENT 1985. It is also mentioned that the airtight polythene bag sample was put in a cloth bag which was scaled with the Inspector''s seal after putting inside, the detailed description, as specified in Form `J'' and the weight of each sample drawn was 400 grams as prescribed in the aforesaid Schedule.

No plausible explanation has been put forth on behalf of the state as to why the procedure adopted for taking the sample, or the manner in which the sample was actually taken, does not find mention in the first information report, This lacuna in the prosecution case cannot be filled by giving details at a later stage. Since the aforesaid legal formalities were not observed or adhered to in the instant case, the First Information Report No. 193 dated 1410.1986 and the impugned order dated 12101988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, are liable to be quashed. I am supported in my view by a Single Bench judgment of this Court reported as Hardev Singh and others v. State of Panjab, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Reports 420.

For the foregoing reasons, the First Information Report No. 193 dated 14101986 and the impugned order dated 12101988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, are ordered to be quashed. This petition is accepted accordingly.