BANSAL & DEOL FERTILIZER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is for quashing of FIR No. 198, dated 5.11.1998, registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Sections 5, 7, 8 and 35 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, at Police Station Jagraon, as also subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 is a firm, dealing in fertilizers and petitioner No. 2 is a partner therein. The firm is a licenced dealer under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. Pursuant to a raid, conducted on 5.11.1998, by one Kuldip Singh, Fertilizer Inspector, in the presence of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, as also the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the stock of DAP fertilizer was found to be short to the extent of 125 bags. Consequently, the aforementioned FIR was registered against the petitioners. Simultaneously, the Chief Agriculture Officer, Ludhiana issued a show-cause notice, under the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985, for cancellation of the petitioner's licence. Vide order dated 3.12.1998 (Annexure P-5), the licence of the petitioner firm was ordered to be cancelled. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Director Agriculture, Punjab. Vide order dated 10.5.1999, the appeal was accepted, the order of cancellation (Annexure P-5) set aside, and the licence, issued to the petitioner-firm restored.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners contends that the FIR, lodged against the petitioners, is liable to be quashed on two grounds. Firstly, the petitioners have been exonerated by the appellate authority of any wrong doing under the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The order of cancellation has been set aside, and as a consequence, the licence has been restored. Thus, the FIR for the same offence, namely, a shortage in the fertilizer, would not be sustainable and is liable to be quashed. The appellate authority, while examining the matter on merits, accepted the explanation, put-forth by the petitioners that there was no shortage of fertilizer. The sale of fertilizer, on the night preceding the raid, was not recorded in the stock register and, therefore, the raiding party, without taking note of this fact, wrongly concluded that there was a shortage. It is, thus, contended that as on the same set of facts, the petitioners have been exonerated in proceedings initiated by the Department, the FIR and the trial cannot be proceeded with. Reliance for the above contention is placed upon Ramesh Kumar v. State (Delhi), 1985(2) RCR(Crl.) 47, Yogesh Sood v. State of Punjab, 1994(3) RCR(Crl.) 394, Ram Murti Gupta v. State of Punjab, 1995(1) RCR(Crl.) 116 and Gurnam Singh v. State of Haryana, 1998(1) RCR(Crl.) 51. The second contention is that DAP fertilizer is no longer a controlled item, shortage thereof would not be an offence, under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and/or the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.