Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: fertilizer sample in M/S Janta Fertilizer Centre Etc vs State Of Punjab on 15 November, 2022Matching Fragments
29. Learned Senior counsel has also referred to Form-L, bearing A.R. No. 2801, dated 12.10.1995 (Ex. PH), i.e. analysis report of fertilizer sample, sent by the Analytical Chemist (Incharge), Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Punjab, Ludhiana, to the Chief Agricultural Officer, Kapurthala, which is the basis of framing case against the appellants. Relevant excerpt of the said report says:
"15. The counsel for the accused at the very outset submitted that in the complaint Ex. PW filed by Jaswant Singh, Chief Agricultural Officer, the detailed procedure with regard to the drawing of the sample of the fertilizer, aforesaid from the stock of M/s Rana Khad Store Dalla, District Kapurthala was not mentioned. He further submitted that even in Form-J, Ex. PD such detailed procedure of taking the sample was not mentioned. He further submitted that it was incumbent upon the Fertilizer Inspector, who took the sample from the fertilizer of M/s Rana Khad Store Dhalla, District Kapurthala to give the detailed procedure of sampling in the complaint and also in Form-J. He further submitted that in the absence of giving the details of taking the sample in the complaint. Ex. PW CRA-S-2260-SB-2003 & CRA-S-2293-SB-2003 and Form-J, Ex. PD any evidence led by the prosecution in this regard, in the shape of the statements of Pirthipal Singh and Nirmal Singh, PWs could not be taken into consideration. The submission of the counsel for the accused does not appear to be correct. In para 6 of the complaint, the detailed procedure of sampling was mentioned by the complainant in Form-J, Ex. PD. It was also mentioned in clear-cut terms that the sample of fertilizer had been drawn in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985. No doubt, the details of drawing sample were not mentioned in Ex. PD. Once it was mentioned in Ex. PD, Form-J that the sample was drawn in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 in my opinion there was substantial compliance with the relevant provisions. When Form-J, Ex. PD is taken into consideration alongwith the allegations contained in the complaint Ex. PW detailing the procedure regarding the sampling and the evidence of Pirthipal Singh and Nirmal Singh only one and one inescapable conclusion that can be arrived at is that the sample was taken strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The submission of the counsel for the accused in this regard does not appear to be correct and is rejected." (emphasis added)
48. In Ajit Singh's case (supra), again proceedings were quashed because of non-compliance of mandatory provision. Observations made in para Nos. 12 and 13 of the said judgment says:-
"12. Inspector Kuldeep Singh who had inspected the Corporation and obtained fertilizer sample, failed to follow the procedure laid down in the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 in particularly Rule 1(e) and Schedule II which reads as follows:-
Identifiable details may also be put on the cloth bag like sample No./Code No. or any other details which enables its identification;
CRA-S-2260-SB-2003 & CRA-S-2293-SB-2003
13. The sample fertilizer was collected and kept in thick polythene sheet and the same were tied, is not in accordance with the aforesaid specific procedure. No doubt "other containers" collecting the fertilizer sample in a polythene sheet does not fall within the definition of other suitable container. This Court has held that provisions of Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 are mandatory. Therefore non- compliance of the aforesaid procedure registration of complaint and sentencing the appellant are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel submitted that the Analytical Chemist (Incharge) Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Punjab Faridkot who had submitted report relating to sub standard fertilizer, has not been examined. Even though the entire complaint and further proceedings were based on the analytical chemist report dated 21.09.1993. Even on this count entire proceedings are vitiated."