HANS RAJ BALRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 24.10.1990 Shri Rajinder Singh Sohi, Fertilizer Inspector, Sangrur, in the presence of Shri Ved Parkash Agricultural Inspector, Ahmadgarh, drew a sample of fertilizer from the premises of M/s Hans Raj Balraj Singh. Sample of each lot was drawn separately in a clean newspaper sheet from machine-stitched-bags of D.A.P. The collected material was thoroughly mixed and was then transferred into three containers. One sample has handed over to the dealer and one was sent to Analyst Chemist, Punjab, Ludhiana, through Shri Harbhajan Singh. On analysis the sample was found to be not according to the specification and the dealer as well as the manufacturer violated the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. Chief Agricultural Officer, Sangrur addressed a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Sangrur and on the basis of that complaint case F.I.R. No. 104 dated 19.9.1991 was registered at Police Station, Ahmadgarh, District Sangrur, against the petitioners, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the Act) read with Clause 19(i)(a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the above referred F.I.R. and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) THE petitioners averred that Hans Raj was neither the partner nor an employee of the petitioners firm and in fact he was running his independent business under the name and style of M/s Walaiti Ram Jagan Nath, Ahmadgarh. The sample was not taken from the petitioner firm nor any document was signed by any of the partners of the firm. The offences under the Essential Commodities Act were triable by the Special Court in a summary manner and challan should have been presented within six months as envisaged under section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but in the present case neither the investigating officer filed a challan within six months nor he had filed an application for seeking permission of the Court for extension of time for further investigation. F.I.R. was liable to be quashed on this ground only. The sample was not taken according to rules and there were no allegations that the alleged sample was properly handled by Fertilizer Inspector in accordance with law or the same was placed in suitable air-tight containers. That is why it was found to be non-standard but even non-standard fertilizer could be disposed of and disposal of it was not an offence. There were restrictions on manufacture, sale and distribution of fertilizer which were not a prescribed standard. It was further alleged that the allegations made in the F.I.R. even taken at their face, value and accepted in their entirety did not constitute an offence and F.I.R. and other proceedings arising therefrom were liable to be quashed as no case was made out against the petitioners.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Dinesh Goel, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Sidhu, Deputy Advocate general Punjab, for the respondents and have perused the record.