KADARKARAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT is the Fertilizer Inspector appointed under Clause 27 of the Fertilizer (Control) order 1985 and is authorised to file complaint for the offences committed under the said Order under sec. 12AA(i)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act. A5, employed as Manager and Chief Manufacturer is incharge and responsible for the manufacturing of fertilizer in all the mixing units of E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd., Madras. A3 is the proprietor of firm and also responsible for the sale of standard fertilizer standard mixture No. 2 which was manufactured by A5. A4 is the accountant employed by the third accused. He was present at the time of sampling and also responsible person in the firm for the conduct of business of A3. A2 is the chemist and incharge and also responsible for distribution of fertilizer standard mixture No. 2. On 17.5.80, the complainant inspected the premises of A3 firm situate in 50 Railway Feeder Road, Sattur. On verification of the stock, it was found out that there was stock of 0.720 mt. of standard mixture No.2. The stock was in stitched bags containing outer writing as "E.I.D. Parry Standard Mixture No. 2". PW1 decided to take the sample from the lot and intimated the fact to A4 accountant of A3 who was present there and managing its affairs. The lot was containing 18 bags, each bag containing 40 kgs of fertilizers. Out of 18 bags, PW1 selected two bags as per Fertilizer Control order (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Order). Those bags were emptied in a clean surface and drawn a composite sample by quartering method. Then composite sample was divided into three portions of 400 gms. each in weight. Then each portion of sample was immediately transferred to a polythene bag and again it was put in a cloth bag which was sealed with fertilizer inspector seal. A4 has not affixed his seal since no metal seal was available with him. A4 was asked to take one part of sample among the three prepared and he has taken one part of the sample and also put his signature in 'J' form. One part of sample was handed over to the next higher authority viz. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sattur and the other part of the sample was sent to Agricultural Chemist, Paramakudi along with 'K' form adopting all the procedures contemplated in the order. The code number was ascertained as SRT 5/90 -91. The agricultural Chemist analysed the sample and reported that the sample of mixture 2 contained only 0.14% of water soluble p 205 (phosphoric acid) as against 1.20% and the sample was declared as 'not according to specification'. On receipt of analytical report from the Agricultural Chemist, Paramakudi, the complainant inspected the premises of the third accused on 28.6.90 to freeze the remaining stock of standard mixture No.2 from which the sample was drawn and it was noticed that the entire quantity of non standard mixture No. 2 was sold out and hence no freeze was done. As per the records, A2 has supplied 2000 kgs of standard mixture No. 2 as per invoice No. 3744 dated 16.2.90. A2, A3 and A5 were called upon to explain for the deficiency noted in the analytical report. A6 gave his reply on behalf of A2 and A4. A5 replied in his explanation that the deficiency in water soluble p 205 is due to storage overtime. The second accused company requested to grant time for sending the detailed report but, no explanation was received from it even after that date. The third accused retailer has stated that such occurrence will not occur in future and this being the first time, he may be excused. The Joint Director of Agriculture Virudhunagar did not accept all the explanations of A3, A4 and A5 and has granted permission to take legal action against the manufacturers and others concerned in this case. A2 has manufactured the sub -standard fertilizer in Unit situate in Madurai and distributed the same to A3 and A3 has stocked and exhibited the same for sale, the fertilizer which was not of specific standard. A4 knowing fully well that the mixture is sub standard was assisting for the sale. A5 is responsible for the manufacture of standard mixture in all units of E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. So, the complainant states that A2 to A5 have contravened the provisions of Clause 19(i) (b) of the Order and they are punishable under sec. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. A5 is added as per the order of court as requested by the department and as informed by the E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd., Madras. A6 is substituted in the place of A1.

(2.) THE case of the complainant summarized on the evidence of PWs is as follows:

(3.) AS against that conviction and sentence A4 preferred C.A. 104/93. A5 preferred C.A. 115/93 and A6 preferred C.A. 116/93.