COIMBATORE PIONEER FERTILIZERS LTD Vs. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Original Petition filed under Section 482 of CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 praying for a direction to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in C.C. No.189 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Udumalpet and quash the same.) This CRIMINAL Original Petition is filed to quash the private complaint in C.C. No.189 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Udumalpet, wherein the petitioners are prescribed for the alleged offence under Sections 7(1) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 read with Sections 19(a) of the Fertilizers Control Order 1985 and 2(q), 2(h) and 19(a) of the Fertilizers Control Order 1985.

(2.) THE allegations in the complaint is that on 03.08.2005 at 11.30 a.m. the respondent on the routine inspection went to the shop of A-6 M/s. Sakthi Agro Service, Udumalpet, which is owned by the A.T.S. Nadhakumar. At the time of his inspection, A.S.P. Sivakumar the salesman was present and the respondent took three samples from the bag containing Super Paspate alleged to have been supplied by A-1, the first petitioner herein. On analysis by the Agricultural Analyst on 05.09.2005, the fertilizer was found to be not of prescribed standard since it was less than 0.91% (the prescribed standard is 16%) and thereafter, on 09.09.2005 again the shop of A-6 was inspected and found all the fertilizers supplied by A-1 were sold. A statutory notice had been issued on 16.09.2005 to the accused calling for an explanation and the first petitioner sent his explanation on 30.09.2005 refuting the allegation. According to him, he did not sell the alleged fertilizer to A-6 M/s. Sakthi Agro Service. Since the explanation was found to be not satisfactory, the respondent after obtaining necessary sanction filed the complaint before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Udumalpet.

(3.) SECTION 19 of the Fertilizer Control Order 1985 specifically prohibits the sale of non-standard fertilizer. On the information furnished that the petitioners have sold the fertilizers to A-6 shop, they have been prosecuted for selling the fertilizer which is of substandard. It is for the petitioners to prove that the declared sample of the fertilizer was not sold by them to A-6 shop. On a bare perusal of the complaint, it is seen that the sample of fertilizer was lifted by the authorities in accordance with the provisions of Fertilizer Control Order 1985 and prosecution has been initiated according to law. The evidence is yet to be adduced by the complainant and the petitioners would be given a right of defence and now it is premature to judge the ultimate decision which the Court may take. The question whether the petitioners have sold the fertilizers to A-6 shop requires examination of evidence in the trial and the same cannot be decided at this stage.