Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pyush Singh Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 June, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-18788-2018
(PYUSH SINGH BAGHEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 18-06-2018
Shri Nikhil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri C.K. Mishra, learned GA for respondent/State.
The petitioner is the District Marketing Officer under whom the State Co-operative Marketing Societies are functioning and different sh fertilizers are stored in godowns. On 04/07/2015, when the Marketing e Society, Jabalpur was checked and seized samples of fertilizers, the ad same was found sub-standard. The chemical fertilizers were supplied Pr by Khaitan Fertilizers and Chemical, Apollo Arcade, 1/2 Old Palasia, Indore. The fertilizer was found to be of substandard and has been a hy stored for sale in the stock. On the written complaint by the Senior Agricultural Officer also designated as Dy. Director, Welfare of ad Farmers and Agricultural Development at the Block, Jabalpur. FIR has M been lodged at Police Station, Vijaynagar at Crime no.197/16 for offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
of The contentions of the counsel for the petitioner is that, at the rt instance of the M.P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation, Bhopal, ou tender was floated and purchase of fertilizer was made. These fertilizers were stored in the godown. The petitioner has nothing to do C with the fertilizer.
h On behalf of the petitioner, it is also contended that, the ig petitioner do not have any control in the purchase and store of the H fertilizers. The store in-charge are responsible for storing of the fertilizers and the purchase was made by the State Co-operative Marketing Federation. Therefore, the petitioner is not responsible for any sub-standard fertilizers stored in the godown. It is also contended that no sanction has been obtained for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 15(1) of the EC Act read with Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
Let the case diary be called. Counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted time to seek instructions.
Meanwhile, it is directed to stay the proceeding at Crime No.197/16 as regarding the petitioner till the next date of hearing. However, it is made clear that, this stay would not be extendable for more than 6 months from today.
List the matter after two weeks. C.C. as per rules.
(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE Digitally signed by RASHMI sh RONALD VICTOR Date: 2018.06.19 10:20:14 e
-07'00' ad RS Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H