LAWS(GJH)-2012-8-134

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. AGRO SERVICE CENTRE

Decided On August 01, 2012
STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
V/S
AGRO SERVICE CENTRE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant Agricultural Inspector, Surendranagar, under Section 378 Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 26.11.1992, rendered in Criminal Case No.2 of 1987 by the learned Special Judge, Surendranagar. The said case was registered against the present respondents original accused for the offence under section 13(1) (a) of the Fertilizers Control Order, 1957 and under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in the Court of learned Special Judge. The said judgment of the trial Court has been challenged by the Agricultural Inspector on the ground that the Judgment and order passed by learned Special Judge is against the law and evidence on record.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, the complainant being Agricultural Inspector on duty visited the accused No.1 viz. Agro Service Centre, Chuda, Taluka : Limdi, on 28.11.1984 in presence of accused No.3 and took the sample of Girnar Super Phosphet 16% W.S.P.O., which is manufactured by the accused No.4 and sent for the analysis to laboratory at Junagadh. After analysis it was found that Girnar Super Phosphet 16% W.S.P.O., is noncertified fertilizer. Upon receipt of the report the complainant, after obtaining sanction, filed complaint against the respondents � original accused for breach of section 13(1)(a) of the Fertilizers Control Order, 1957 and section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in the Court of learned Special Judge, Surendranagar, being Criminal Case No.2 of 1987.

(3.) SHE has contended that the learned Judge has erred in appreciating the documentary evidence on the record of the case viz. Ex.28 � 38. She has contended that the learned Judge has committed error in appreciating the provisions of the Fertilizers Control Order, 1957. Lastly, she has read observations of the learned Judge and contended that the observations made by the learned Judge are not proper in the eye of law and therefore, judgment and order of the learned Judge is required to be set aside.