Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing Complaint, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with Clause 19, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, has been filed by the petitioner.

2. On 12.06.01, Sh. Baljinder Singh Gill, Development Officer, alongwith Sh. Pritpal Singh ADO, Jandiali, Ludhiana, exercising the powers of Fertilizer Inspector, Sahnewal, raided the premises of Sahnewal Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., which was indulging in the business of fertilizer, vide licence No. 32/327 (valid upto 24.05.03). The Fertilizer Inspector, showed his intention, to take the sample of the fertilizer, to Dharam Singh, Manager, and Arun Kumar Sood, Clerk, working in the said firm. He also tried to join some non-official member with the raiding party, but in vain. Thereafter, exercising the power, under Clause 28(1) (b) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, he took the sample of Di-ammonium Phosphate "IFFCO" N 18%, P 46%, from four bags, manufactured by Indian Farmers Cooperative Ltd., Kandla, Gujarat, in accordance with the procedure, laid down, as per Schedule II Part 'A' of Fertilizer Control Order, in the presence of Dharam Singh, Manager, and Arun Kumar Sood, Clerk, as also Sh. Pritpal Singh, ADO, Jandiali. At the time of taking out the sample of fertilizer, from the bags, he inserted probe diagonally, from one corner to another and poured the same, approximately weighing 6-7 kgs., on a dry polythene sheet. Thereafter, the sample, was mixed with the hard paper to make its contents homogenous. The sample was divided into four equal parts, on the sheet, and mixed till it remained 1 ½ kgs in weight. Thereafter, three test samples of the fertilizer, weighing 400 gms each, were prepared and converted into parcels duly sealed with the seals, bearing impressions F1 and F1 2 MN. 'J' forms, were also filled up, and signed by the Fertilizer Inspector and attested by Sh. Pritpal Singh, ADO, Jandiali, witness to the recovery. After completing all the formalities, as per Schedule II Part A of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, the Fertilizer Inspector, sent two sample parcels alongwith forms J & K, to the office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Ludhiana, wherefrom, Sh. Surjit Singh, AEEO, sent one sample parcel, to the Analytical Chemist Incharge, Fertilizer Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana, on 13.06.01, through Darbara Singh, Sewadar. The report of the Analytical Chemist Incharge, dated 12.07.01, was received, according to which, the sample of fertilizer, was opined to be not according to specifications, showing N. 17.5% as against 18% and P44.8% as against 46%. Thereafter, on 16.07.01, the Chief Agricultural Officer, Ludhiana, issued show cause notices, to Sahnewal Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., for violation of Clause 19(1) (a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, and provisions of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 of Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd. Kandla, Gujarat. Copy of the show cause notice, was also sent to the Chief Manager, IFFCO, Kandla, alongwith copy of the analysis report. A show cause notice dated 27.07.01, was also served upon Iqbal Singh, Manager, IFFCO, Ludhiana, for violation of Clause 19(i) (a) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. A show cause notice dated 03.08.01, was also served upon Deep Narain Verma, Manager Quality Control, IFFCO, Kandla. It was stated that Dharam Singh, Manager of Sahnewal Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. and Arun Kumar Sood, were responsible for the conduct of business of the aforesaid firm, and, as such, supplied fertilizer to the CASS/farmers under DRC No. 32/327. It was further stated that, thus, accused No. 2, 3, 4 and 6, in general, and the petitioner, in particular, being the persons responsible for the act and conduct of the business of accused No. 1 firm, violated the provisions of Clause 19(1) (a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, by manufacturing / selling /stocking /supplying/ distributing offering for sale and exhibiting for sale of sub-standard fertilizers.

7. Now adverting to the facts of the instant case, let us see, as to whether, the principle of law, laid down, in State of Haryana and others' case (supra), is applicable, to the same, or not. In para No. 10 of the complaint, it was in so many words, stated by the complainant, that the petitioner, is the person responsible and working as Manager, Quality Control, IFFCO, Kandla, Gujarat. The petitioner, being the Manager, Quality Control, was charged with the duty, to maintain the quality of the fertilizer manufactured. When the sample of the fertilizer taken, was analyzed, by the Laboratory, it was not found upto the prescribed specifications. The sample was, therefore, found to be adulterated not standard. Not only this, Deep Narain Verma, petitioner, also submitted, in his affidavit, dated 03.10.02, the mention whereof, was also made, in the complaint, that he had been appointed, as responsible person, under Clause 24 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. He also stated, in the affidavit, that he shall be responsible for the quality of NPK 12:32:16 and DAP 18:46:0, under Clause 24 of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. Complaint is not an encyclopedia. During the course of the evidence, to be produced, in the complaint, the complainant, will prove, as to the mode and manner, in which, the petitioner, was incharge of, and responsible, to the Company, for the conduct of its business. The very nature of the duty of the petitioner, was to maintain the quality of fertilizer. If the quality of fertilizer, was found to be sub-standard, then certainly, he could be said to be a person incharge of responsible for the said violation. In the cases, relied upon, by the Counsel for the petitioner, it was laid down, that the mere averment, in the complaint, that all the Directors, were responsible for clearance of liability, did not meet the statutory requirement of making them incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The aforesaid cases, were decided, on the peculiar facts and circumstances, prevailing therein. In the instant case, besides the clear-cut averment, made in the complaint, as to, in which manner, the petitioner, was liable for the commission of offences, being Manager, Quality Control, reliance was also placed, on the affidavit, which was submitted by him, that he was wholly solely responsible for complying with the provisions of Clause 24 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. Under these circumstances, the facts of the instant case, being clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the aforesaid cases, no help, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the petitioner, from the ratio of law, laid down, therein. The continuation of the complaint and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom cannot be said to be sheer abuse of the process of the Court. The same are not liable to be quashed.