Sewa Ram vs State of Haryana

S.S. Grewal, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'') relates to quashment of complaint under Section 7/13 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Section 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer (Control) JUDGMENT 1985, filed by the State of Haryana through Shri Braham Singh, Quality Control Inspector (Fertilizer Inspector), in the office of the Deputy Director of Agriculture (I.A.D.P.) Kurukshetra, as also the subsequent proceedings taken thereunder, and framing of the charge against the petitioners by the Special Judge, Kurukshetra.

According to the allegations in the complaint, Shri Om Singh, Quality Control Inspector, Kurukshetra, took sample of Chelated Zine (ZNEDTA fertilizer) from the stock of the firm M/s. Ramesh Lal and Company, Pipli, of which the present petitioners are partners, and look after the work of the said firm of selling the fertilizer. The sample was drawn and dividend in three parts. All the parts of the sample were duly sealed. One part of the sample was given to Tilak Raj. The sample was sent for analysis to the State Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal, which was declared to be of `nonstandard'', as per report of the Analytical Chemist Copy thereof was sent to the said firm. Reply was sent by the firm to the Deputy Director (Agriculture), Kurukshetra, which was not found to be satisfactory. It was also alleged that the said firm actually purchased the fertilizer from M/s. Sehgal Brothers, Subhash Mandi, Kurukshetra, for sale vide bill No. 9655 dated 6th June, 1987. M.S. Sheshadri, General Manager (Production), Aries AgroWest Industries Private Limited, Bombay, was impleaded as an accused, as he was responsible for the manufacture of nonstandard fertilizer.

The Special Judge after recording preliminary evidence, comprised of the statements of Shri Braham Singh (PW1), Om Singh (PW2) and Dr. R.S. Mehta, Analytical Chemist, Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal, charged the petitioners for violation of the provisions of clause 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer (Control) JUDGMENT 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the JUDGMENT), vide his order dated 5.11.1988.

Counsel for the parties were heard.

Admittedly, part of the evidence in the trial Court has been recorded. It was mainly contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the sample was not sealed according to the procedure laid down in clauses 28(1)(b) and 29 read with Clause 1(e) of the JUDGMENT inasmuch as the sample of fertilizer drawn in the instant case was divided in three parts and put in three polythene bags, and not in thick gauged polythene bags, as per requirements of the aforesaid provisions of law.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners cited Single Bench authorities of this Court in Gian Chand Luthra v. State of Punjab, 1988 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 534, Hans Raj and others v. State of Punjab, 1981 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 537 and Sohan Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 372 , wherein the samples of fertilizer taken and put in polythene bags, and sent for analysis, were held to be in violation of the Fertilizer (Control) JUDGMENT 1957.

Under the provisions of Fertilizer (Control) JUDGMENT 1957, it was mandatory that the sample could only be taken in clean, dry, and airtight glass, or other suitable container and not in polythene bags. These authorities relate to different set of rules, and would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, which is governed by the Fertilizer (Control) JUDGMENT 1985, whereby, it is permissible that the sample of fertilizer can also be kept in thick gauged polythene bags. The question whether the polythene bags used in the present case were, or were not according to the aforesaid specifications, in a question of fact. The same can be properly decided by the trial Court, which is in the process of recording evidence. It would not be desirable for this Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction, to decide this matter, which is purely a question of fact, or to weigh the evidence, which was already been recorded by the trial Court.

For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that nothing observed herein for the disposal of this petition, shall affect the merits of the case before the trial Court, which shall decide the case expeditiously.

Copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned immediately.