SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITILTD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The aforesaid petitions have been filed for a writ of certiorari quashing the first information reports lodged under Section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act for violation of Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1995 (hereinafter called 'Control Order' for convenience).

(2.) IN Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 814 of 1998, first information report was lodged by Additional District Agriculture Officer, Gola Khazana, Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur against the Secretary, Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Limited, Raja Vishanpura on the allegation that the sample of D. P. Fertiliser drawn on 10.8.97 was found to be non-standard due to deficiency of nitrogen and phosphorus. The first information report which was lodged on 7.10.97 has been sought to be quashed on the following grounds-(i) the result of the analysis was not communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner is not liable as the fertiliser was purchased from the manufacturer I.F.F.C.O. and was distributed by the Society. The U. P. Co-operative Federation, Lucknow initially got fertiliser from Central Government such as INdian Farmer Fertiliser Corporation conveniently referred as I.F.F.C.O. which is manufacturer and the fertiliser and was distributed to various societies under the direction of U. P. Co-operative Federation, therefore, the petitioner is not responsible for any deficiency ; thirdly it has been stated that on representation by the petitioner, the Chief Development Officer (Co-operative) directed the District Agriculture Officer to get the fertiliser reanalysed and to take action only after the receipt of result of the second analysis by laboratory as there are chances of the fertiliser being adversely affected by moisture.

(3.) IN Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1135 of 1998, first information report was lodged on 13.2.1998 by Deputy Director, it was alleged that Prasad Urvarak Nigam on analysis was found to be non-standard and thereby the petitioner committed the offence complained. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner had purchased 80 bags of Nitrogen Phosphate manufactured by Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilisers Limited, Bombay through wholesale dealer M/s. Shyam Sundar Madan Mohan and, therefore, only manufacturer and dealer may be held responsible for deficiency if any. Secondly, it has been stated that the fertiliser bags were machine stitched and, therefore, the petitioner is not liable for the offence. Thirdly, it has been stated that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to get the sample given to him analysed which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Fourthly, it has been stated that the manufacturer who may be liable for the deficiency in the fertiliser has not been implicated in this case.