DHARAM NATH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are partners of Firm M/s. Dharam Nath Ravinder Kumar, dealing in Fertilizer at Khem Karan, tehsil Patti, District Amritsar. A case about the contravention of the provisions of Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 was registered against them and others vide First Information Report No. 263 dated 27.8.1980 in Police Station Valtoha. According to the allegations, in the First information Report a sample of fertilizer was taken for analysis from the sealed bags from the shop of the petitioners by the fertilizer Inspector. That Fertilizer was manufactured by M/s. Davindra Agro Chemicals (India), Ludhiana whose managing partner was Nohar Chand Gupta. On analysis by the Government Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana it was found that the variation in water solution phosphate was 3.51%. Thus the fertilizer was substandard. After investigation of the case, charge-sheet was presented against the present petitioners, and other in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Patti who framed charges against them on 6.1.1983.

(2.) THE petitioners filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) for quashing the First Information Report, as well as charges framed by the learned trial Court. Many grounds were taken in the petition, but before me only two grounds were pressed and therefore, it is not necessary to give all the allegations contained in the petition. The first ground pressed was that learned trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence in view of Section 482(2) of the Code and secondly, the case ought to have been tried summarily in view of section 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act (the present Section 12-A was substituted by new sections, by section 11 of Central Act 18 of 1981, but the substituted sections have not been enforced so far) and charges could not have been framed against them. I will take the above grounds in seriatim.

(3.) IN the above view of mine that case about the contravention of Fertilizer Control Order., does not fall within the ambit of the section 468 of the Act, I am supported by a judgment given by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 235-M of 1982, (Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab), decided on September 6, 1982. That case also related to the contravention of the Fertilizer Control Order. C.S. Tiwana, J., who decided that case remarked :-