Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.5. Furthermore, he has submitted that the respondent has failed to furnish details by way of definite panchnama / inspection note and/or inspection memo and/ or seizure memo in the present case. When the respondent has failed to show any panchnama inspection note and/or inspection memo and/or seizure memo, no precise step taken by the inspector to draw the samples can be determined in the present case and it cannot be said that the procedure was duly followed. Therefore, considering the decision in the case of Ms. Chittari Agricare Pvt. Ltd. V/s. State of Rajasthan, reported in NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7828/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2023 undefined 2015 (1) RCR (Criminal) 929 : AIR Online 2014 Raj 13 and considering AIR Online 2022 Raj 3606 (Ms. Chittari Agricare Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, Karnataka V/s. State of Rajasthan), the present case may be allowed and the impugned proceedings may be quashed and set aside as neither Panchnama nor seizure memo is found. 4.6. Furthermore, he has submitted that considering the various decisions including the judgment in the case of Sham Lal Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2004 (1) EFR 243 and other decisions of 1987 (2) C.LR. 291 and 1988 EFR 425 and 1990 (1) EFR 206, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner may be quashed and set aside, considering that no plausible explanation has been put forth on behalf the State as regards the procedure adopted for taking the sample. Therefore, he has prayed that the present petition may be allowed as continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.

12. When the law prescribes that a particular act has to be done in a particular manner, it goes as a corollary that the mode of performing such act should be reflected in the corresponding documents so as to instill confidence and sanctity in the proceedings and for maintaining fairness. This Court in the case of Chandra Prakash (supra) was dealing with an identical NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7828/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2023 undefined situation. In the aforesaid case, this Court observed that a mere mention in the complaint and the inspection memo that the mandatory procedure as provided in the Schedule was followed would not suffice. It has to be mentioned and elaborated in the seizure memo that the detailed procedure of drawl of samples prescribed in the Schedule was followed. The precise steps taken by the Inspector to draw the samples have to be reproduced in the inspection note so as to reflect subjectively that the procedure as duly followed. When the issue regarding the mandatory provisions being followed is examined by the court, the prosecution would only have the inspection memo and the complaint to fall upon in order to establish compliance. In order to satisfy the court that the due procedure was followed, the procedure obviously has to be reflected in these documents."

12.Further, the appellants were not informed about NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7828/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2023 undefined taking of samples nor the same were taken in presence of the appellants. It is not brought on record that while taking the samples, proper procedure was followed."

6.2.4. It is also relevant to refer the decision in the case of Sham Lal versus State of Haryana reported in 2004 (1) EFR 243, more particularly, paragraph 8 is relevant, as under:

"8. From the perusal of the above, it would be clear that detailed procedure had been mentioned as to the manner in which the sample of fertilizer is to be drawn. In Clause 1 (e), it is mentioned that the sample should be kept in a suitable, clean dry and air tight glass or screwed hard polythene bottle of about 400 gms. capacity or in a thick gauged polythene bag and it should be put in a cloth bag and the same should be sealed. Clause 1(f) provides that each sample bag should be sealed air tight after filing and marked with details of sample, type and brand of fertilizer, name of order/manufacture and the name of inspector who has collected sample. In the present case, as referred to above, there is no material on the record to show as to in what manner sample was taken. When PW6 Hari Singh, Inspector appeared in the NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7828/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2023 undefined witness box during examination-in-chief, he did not utter a single word about the manner in which the samples were drawn, except saying that the sample were sealed and one sealed container was given to the accused. It was for the first time during cross- examination when he de- posed that the samples of the fertilizers were put by him in three thick polythene bags, which he had taken with him. He, however, admitted that he did not prepare the detail of the sample in From J as appended to Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. PW6 Hari Singh, Inspector nowhere had stated that whether the samples were put by him in cloth bag and whether sample bag was sealed air tight after filling and marking with details of sample etc., as provided under Clause 1 (f) above. Furthermore, as referred to above, PW6 Hari Singh, Inspector had admitted himself that he did not prepare the details of the sample in Form J, appended to the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. In Clause 1 (e) above, it is provided that after putting the sample in a cloth bag, it should be sealed with Inspector's seals after putting inside the detailed description as specified in Form J. Thus, this requirements was also not complied with by the Inspector while taking sample. In 1987 (2) C.L.R. 291 (supra), while considering the similar provision contained in Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957, it was held by this Court that sample was required to NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/7828/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2023 undefined be taken in suitable, clear, dry and air tight glass or other suitable containers etc. and requirement of law was not complied with while taking sample and as such FIR against the accused in violation of the mandatory provisions of law deserved to be quashed. Similarly in 1988 EFR 425 (supra), it was held that where the sample was not taken in accordance with the Provisions of Law, the FIR against the accused was liable to be quashed. Similarly, in 1990 (1) EFR 206 (supra) while considering the Provisions of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, it was found that no plausible explanation had been put forth on behalf of the State as to why the procedure adopted for taking the sample or, the manner in which the sample was actually taken does not find specific mention in the FIR. It was also found that this lacuna in the prosecution case coud not be filled by giving details at a later stage. It was found that since the aforesaid mandatory legal formalities were not observed or adhered to in the instant case, the FIR and consequent pro- ceedings taken there-under including framing of charge sheet against the accu- sed were liable to be quashed.