Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Insofar as the defect highlighted by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding sealing of sample is concerned, it is relevant to refer to Schedule-II of the Order which deals with procedure for drawal of sample of fertilizers.

"1. General requirements of sampling:

In drawing samples, the following measures and precautions should be observed:

[a] Samples shall not be taken at a place exposed to rain/sun;

[f] Each sample bag should be sealed air tight after filling and marked with details of sample and type of fertilizer and the name of inspector who has collected sample."

11. In the complaint, it is stated that during inspection, random samples were drawn from four bags out of 300 bags of fertilizers stored in godown of the petitioner, out of which above 1.5 kg of fertilizer was taken as samples and the same was divided into three parts and kept in three clean and dry plastic bags, kept in clothed bag affixing inspector's seal. This procedure, in my view, is in accordance with Clause[1] of Schedule-II of the Order.

15. In 'CHARANDAS AND OTHERS v. STATE OF PUNJAB' reported in 1987 EFR 315, sample though was put in polythene bags had remained in the same condition for more than one and half years till analysis and in view of this, it was held that taking of sample being in violation of mandatory provisions of law, FIR was liable to be quashed.

16. In the instant case, records reveal that samples were drawn in presence of the petitioner/accused. Form-J [Form indicating particulars of Fertilizer samples] contains the receipt signed by the petitioner. It reads as under:

"RECEIPT OF THE DEALERS "Certified that the sample of fertilizer has been drawn in accordance with the procedure laid down in the fertilizer control Order, 1985 from the stock in my possession and I have signed the test samples at the time of sealing. I have also received the one test sample out of the three test samples drawn."

In the light of this certificate, contention of the petitioner that the samples were not drawn in accordance with the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 cannot be accepted. Further, it is not case of the petitioner that on account of the defect in drawing and preserving the samples, they were found unfit for examination or that they were contaminated on account of improper sealing. The Analysts who examined the samples did not find any defect in the samples sent for their examination. Under the circumstances, the contention urged by the petitioner that the respondent-Inspector has breached the procedure in obtaining the samples cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. Even otherwise, the said contention is required to be established only during trial and it is premature to hold it otherwise.