ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON November 2, 1991 Sushil Kumar Poonia, a Quality Control Inspector in the office of the Director at Kuruksherta took a sample of PPL/DAP fertilizer from shop No. 52, Purani Mandi, Kaithal, owned by M/s. Shambhu Dyal Ashok Kumar. At the time of taking a sample, the firm had in its stock DAP of PPL and IPL brand though it had no authority to sell this fertilizer. The firm purchased and sold articles in contravention of clause 7 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. The sample taken from the shop of the firm was sent to quality control laboratory at Karnal for analysis. On January 10, 1992 a report pertaining to the analysis of the sample was received from the office of the Deputy Director Agriculture, Kurukshetra wherein the sample was declared sub-standard. By keeping sub-standard fertilizer in possession for the purpose of sale. The firm violated the provisions of clause 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer (Control ) Order, 1985. The Quality Control Inspector, Kurukshetra made a complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station City, Kaithal in writing on the basis of which case FIR No. 79 dated 18.3.1992 was registered under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Ashok Kumar petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the above referred First Information Report date 18.3.1992, Annexure P-1, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) IT was averred in the petition that the sample was found non-standard because the Quality Control Inspector did not confirm is the prescribed method of obtaining the sample in accordance with schedule II of the Fertilizer (Control) Order. The sample could not have been taken at a place exposed to sun and rain and the same was required to be taken with appropriate sampling instruments. A person taking sample was to adopt the procedure of quartering for making a composite sample of about 1.5 kg. in weight prescribed under clause 5 of the Order. It was no where mentioned in the First Information Report as to how the sample was taken and in this way, the mandatory provisions of law were not complied with.

(3.) I have heard Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Gill, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent and have perused the record.