Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. This aforementioned consistent line of reasoning was thereafter crystallized in Manoj Grover's case (supra), wherein this Court categorically held that no offence under Section 7(1)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act is made out against a dealer when the fertilizer sample is drawn from duly stitched and sealed bags, procured from an authorized source, and there is no allegation of tampering. The Court unequivocally held that responsibility for sub-standard fertilizer, if any, can be fastened only upon the manufacturer and not upon the dealer or marketing firm having no control over the manufacturing process. The aforesaid principle was further elaborated in Kehar Singh's case (supra), wherein it was held that when Form 'J' does not record any irregularity, tampering, defective packaging or improper storage, the prosecution cannot subsequently seek to draw adverse presumptions against the dealer during the course of arguments. It was further held that in the absence of any evidence connecting the dealer with the manufacturing of the fertilizer or showing knowledge of any defect, liability cannot be extended to the dealer and only the manufacturer can be held accountable for failure of the sample.