STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BALAK RAM AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sample of fertilizer obtained from the dealer was found to be sub-standard on analysis. Learned trial Court convicted-the dealer vide its, impugned judgment dated November 13, 1981 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay Rs. 1000/- as fine. In default of payment of fine, the convicted accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. In appeal, vide its impugned judgment dated May 31, 1982 learned lower Appellate Court set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused holding that the procedure prescribed for taking the sample set out in Schedule II of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 had not been followed. Feeling aggrieved therefrom the State of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal No. 418-DBA of 1983 in this Court.

(2.) We have heard Shri Randhir Singh, AAG Punjab for the appellant, Shri S. S. Nijjar, Senior Advocate, with Sarvshri S. S. Dhaliwal, Ravinder Chopra, Surinder Mohan Lal Arora and Arun Chandra, Advocates, for the respondents and carefully perused the relevant record. Three more Criminal Appeal Nos. 419, 589 and 590 all DBA of 1983 also arise from the same judgment of the learned trial Court and have, therefore, been heard and are being disposed of together through this judgment. Counsel appearing for respondents in the remaining three Criminal Appeals aforesaid have also been heard.

(3.) P.W. 3, Gurkaram Singh, Agricultural Inspector, Muktsar, who took the sample of fertilizer admitted in cross-examination, "The samples were taken approximately without weight. Six bags wore taken out from the stock at random. The shop of the accused is situated in thickly populated area, but we did not join any witness from that locality. It is correct that this entry is :- "I have taken three samples of zinc sulphate drawn out of 2570 Kg. only. Whatever I have mentioned in my endorsement in Ex. P. 3, I have stated above and beyond that I do not remember anything orally." It would thus appear that as against the prescribed quantity of 500 grams the sample obtained was admittedly of far lesser quantity. It was not put in a bottle having a tight fitting stopper as per requirement envisaged in clause 4(a)(ii) of Schedule II appended to the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 and independent witnesses of the locality admittedly available were not called to witness the collection of sample from the respondent accused. The admissions indicate violation of the mandatory provisions of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957.