Rajinder Kumar and Brothers vs State of Punjab

A.S. Nehra, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been filed for quashing the first information report.

The first information report was recorded on the basis of the letter written by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Bathinda, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda. According to the allegations mentioned therein, the Agricultural Inspector took a sample of Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) on 9121986 from M/s. Rajinder Kumar and Brothers, Sardulgarh. The said sample was analysed and the same was found to be, nonstandard.

Reply has been filed by Manjit Singh, Agricultural Development Officer, Mansa. It has, been submitted in the reply that the fertilizer sample was declared nonstandard due to excess moisture 0.48 per cent and the proper procedure, vide Schedule II of Fertilizer Control JUDGMENT1985, was adopted; that Form `J'' was signed by petitioner No. 1; and that petitioner No. 1 received the test sample and gave a receipt, which shows his full satisfaction that the fertilizer sample has been drawn from the stock in his possession, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Fertilizer Control JUDGMENT 1985.

Mr. Dinesh Goyal, 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 Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) was taken by the Agricultural 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 11 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 sealed 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 11 (PartA), 1(a) of the Fertilizer Control JUDGMENT 1985. It is also mentioned that the airtight polythene bag sample was put in a cloth bag which was sealed with the Inspector''s seal after putting inside the detailed description, as specified in Form F 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 is 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 Punjab, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Reports 420.

For the foregoing reasons, First Information Report No. 152 dated 9121987 (Annexure P3) registered at the Police Station, Sardulgarh (District Bathinda), is quashed. This petition is accepted accordingly.