SHAM SUNDER BASSI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sham Sunder accused-petitioner was posted as Area Manager at Bhatinda on 19/11/1984 under the Punjab Agro Industries Corporation. During this period Diaminonium Phosphate Fertilizer imported by the Government of India from abroad and entrusted to the Food Corporation of India for distribution in the country came for distribution in the State of Punjab, through the Punjab Agro Industries Corporation. This fertilizer was being distributed by the Corporation to different dealers including M/ s. S. C. Mittal and Co. of village Bhagta Bhai. On 19/11/1984, Jarnail Singh, Agricultural Inspector went to Bhagta Bhai, and took sample of fertilizer from the premises of the aforesaid dealer, as per rules. The sample of DAP fertilizer was sent to the Analyst who vide report Annexure P. 2 found the sample to be sub-standard as water soluable phosphate contents therein were 39.60% as against the required standard of 41%. On receipt of this report, the Chief Agricultural Officer, Bhatinda, lodged complaint Annexure P. 3 against the petitioner for offences under S. 7 of the Essential Conunodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Cl. 13(1)(a) and (b) and sub-cl. (iii) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Control Order'). The trial Court vide order Annexure P. 6 framed charge against the petitioner for offences punishable under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act in view of violation of the provisions of Cl. 13(1)(a), (b)(iii) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957.

(2.) The accused-petitioner seeks quashment of complaint as well as order of the trial Court framing charge on the ground that the Area Manager is not liable under the provisions of S. 10 of the Act as he is not directly concerned with the distribution of the fertilizer and that, too, without arraigning Corporation as one of the accused. Various other objections like sample having been taken improperly and not scaled in container were taken. It is also maintained that the provisions of the Act, 1955, or the Control Order, 1957 would not be attracted to the fertilizer in question, which has been imported from abroad as its manufacturer is not bound by the specifications given in the Control Order.

(3.) In return, filed by the respondent, it is stated that the petitioner is clearly liable for the distribution of sub-standard fertilizer and that onus was on the accused-petitioner to prove that he was not in any way directly concerned with the distribution of the fertilizer while performing his duties as an Area Manager under the Corporation.