VISAKHA AGRO CHEMICALS P LTD Vs. FERTILISER INSPECTOR CUM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE REGULAR VIZAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three accused in S.T.C. No. 1/1992 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under Essential Commodities Act, Visakhapatnam, who were convicted for committing an offence under Clause 19(l)(a)(c)(ii)(iii) of the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985 r/w Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to pay fine as well as to undergo rigorous imprisonment for certain periods have filed this Criminal Appeal.

(2.) The appellants/accused were charged for committing an offence punishable under clause 19( 1 )(a)(c)(ii)(iii) of the Fertiliser Control Order r/w Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. A1 is the factory situated in Mindi Village of Visakhapatnam District and manufactures fertilisers which is marketed in public as Zinc Sulphate with 21% Zinc. A2 is the Managing Director of the Company who controls the day-to-day business, production and affairs of Al company. A3 is an employee in A1-company and is incharge of the company.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that on 23-4-1991 the Fertilisers Inspector-cum- Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular), Visakhapatnam, visited the company. At the time of visit by complainant he found about three tonnes of Zinc Sulphate in open bags in the factory premises with the description about the lot number, date of manufacture and composition as 22-4-1992, batch No. 22 and Zinc containing 21%. The defacto complainant i.e. the Assistant Director of Agriculture who has been examined as PW1 on suspicion took samples out of the said bags under Form 'J' as per clause 28(5)(1) Fertiliser Control Order and forwarded the sample under Form 'K' under clause 30(1) to the Fertiliser Quality Control Laboratory, Hyderabad, on the next day, for the purpose of obtaining the opinion whether the said fertiliser sample contain 21% of Zinc. The Analyst's Report in Form 'L' shows that the declaration of Zinc as 21% is not correct, but however the Analyst's Report showed that the composition is only 17.74%. The sample showed that the Zinc Sulphate produced by the accused-company is less than the prescribed standard and therefore the accused- company was informed on the basis of the Analyst's Report on 5-6-1991 as to the deficiency of the Zinc Sulphate. The company by its letter dated 20-6-1991 replied to the complainant by reiterating that the contents of the product is as per the standard and again the Company sought reprocessing the Zinc Sulphate. The respondent-defacto complainant rejected the reprocess as sought for by the Company and proceeded to prosecute the accused including the company under the provisions of clause 19(1)(a) (c)(ii)(iii) of the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985 r/w Section 7(l)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act.