Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"......Three bags were selected at random i.e. bag no. 5, 25 and 46. Approx. 6 Kg. sample was drawn with the sampler. 6 Kg. fertilizer was divided into four equal parts on the plain paper. Each portion was mixed. Two portions were destroyed and remaining two parts were again divided into four equal parts. Again two portions were discarded. Again remaining two portions were mixed and was divided into 3 CRA-S-2260-SB-2003 & CRA-S-2293-SB-2003 equal parts each weighing 500 grams. These samples were put in three dry, clean polythene bags and were tied to make them air-tight and were put in the cloth bags. ...... xxxxx ......There is no attestation of any person of Rana Khad Store on the cutting on form J and K. The sample was weighed in the weighing scale which was available on the shop of Rana Khad Store. When the sample was withdrawn from the bag it was taken by approximation and it was not weighed. After the sample was drawn from the bag the same was placed on polythene sheet. No memo in writing was prepared regarding the sampling procedure adopted by us. It was month of September and rainy season. It is correct that the fertilizer is hygroscopic nature and gains moisture from the air. .........Single super phosphate is available in powder form as well as in granules. We had taken the polythene bags from our office before leaving for sampling. The same were of 1 kg capacity but I cannot tell the thickness of the polythene bag. ......" (emphasis added)

28. From the aforementioned statements of two prosecution witnesses, i.e. PW-5 and PW-4, respectively, learned Senior counsel argues that there is material contradictions in the statements of said witnesses with regard to procedure of sampling of fertiliser and its weighment, i.e. which type of weighing scale, weight and measures were used and what was total weight of fertiliser taken out from three bags - 6Kgs or 7 Kgs.

"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)

 No memo in writing was prepared regarding the sampling procedure;

Sampling was done in the month of September, which was rainy season;

 It was correct that the drawn fertiliser was hygroscopic in nature and gains moisture from the air; and  When confronted, this witness was unable to tell the thickness of the polythene bags used.