S.S. ANAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per allegations in the first information report a sample of D.A.P. Fertilizers was drawn on 11.7.1985 by Agricultural Inspector Bhag Singh from machine stitched bags bearing the marking of IFFCO (Indian Farmers' Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd.). This sample was taken in a polythene paper. The same was sent to the Fertilizer Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana. It was found to be not according to the specifications and substandard. It was alleged that it was in violation of clause 19(1)(1)(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985.

(2.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the said first information report against him. The sole ground pressed has been that in the first information report there is no allegation that the petitioner was Incharge of the business or in any way responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business, In that process, it is claimed that in the absence of any such fact, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the alleged offence so contemplated under the Essential Commodities Act. Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 reads as under :-

(3.) SOMEWHAT similar situation had arisen in the case of B.B. Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1995(2) RCR 291. That was a case under the Insecticides Act 1988. The sample of the insecticides was found mis-branded. Sh. B.B. Nagpal was a Secretary of the Company; the assertions made against him were vague. It was concluded that in the absence of any material connecting him with the provisions of Section 13 of the Insecticides Act prosecution qua the said person was liable to be quashed. The position herein is no different. Since it is not shown or alleged that the petitioner was in charge of and responsible to the Company for conduct of the business, proceedings qua the present petitioner pending in the trial Court are liable to be quashed. For these reasons, the petition is allowed and qua the petitioner the proceedings pending before the trial Court are quashed. Petition allowed.