CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 Cr.PC has been directed against the order, dated April 13, 1985, passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act) Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby he took cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violation of Clause 13(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this case are that the Assistant Director, Agriculture (Quality Control), Kota had filed a report at Police Station, Kaithoon on February 17,1984, wherein he alleged that he had visited the Sale Centre of M/s Ambika Enterprises, Bus Stand, Kaithoon on December 4, 1983 and had taken the sample of Single Super Phosphate 16% and NPK 12 : 32 : 16 of Jeevan Fertilisers Company Ltd. It was mentioned that the firm obtained 20 bags of Fertilisers of which 19 bags had been sold and one duly stitched by machine was lying in the shop. Three samples were obtained and were sent for analysis to the Public Analyst who after analysis reported the sample to be sub -standard. Other allegations were also levelled against the petitioners which are not mentioned since they are not relevant for the disposal of this case. Suffice it to say that after investigation the Police submitted a final report which was submitted before the Special Judge (EC Cases), Jaipur. The learned Judge did not agree with the final report and said that in Clause 13(a) of the Fertilisers Control Order, 1957 it is mentioned that no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale stock or exhibit for sale or distribute any Fertiliser which is not of prescribed standard, and according to the learned Special Judge since sample was taken to be sub -standard the Directors and Parterns of all the three, Firms which had the dealing were prima facie liable for being prosecuttd and hence took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner. They have challenged the same in this Court by this petition.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor could not substantiate the order passed by the learned Special Judge but submits that the petitioners should raise this point at the time of framing of the charge.