Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iii) Cost of the petition may also be allowed."

2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner, being a registered dealer of fertilizer, was engaged in the business of buying and selling fertilizer, which was/is governed by the provisions of the Essential Commodity Act, 1955 and the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. On 06.08.2006, a sample of fertilizer was collected from the petitioner's premises and some lapses were found. Thereafter, a show-cause notice (Annexure P/3, dated 10.10.2006) was issued to the petitioner asking him to file reply within a period of 15 days (i.e. till 25.10.2006), to which the petitioner filed his reply within the prescribed time denying the allegations levelled against him. He had also filed an appeal on 04.11.2006 before the Appellate Authority against the lapses found by the Registering Authority on 14.08.2006.

8. It is reflected from the reply filed by the respondents vide Annexure R/7 at Page No.140 that the appeal of the petitioner had already been dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2006 whereby appeal of manufacturer M/s Paradeep Phosphate Limited for re-examination of fertilizer sample was rejected since it was found of substandard despite of the fact that respondent No.2 vide letter dated 28.11.2006 directed to conduct an inquiry and thereafter, inquiry was conducted on 25.01.2007 and report thereof was submitted; thus question of rejecting the appeal dated 04.11.2006 and another appeal dated 22.01.2007 in compliance of order of this Court dated 10.01.2007 deserves no consideration. As a consequence of dismissal of the aforesaid appeals, the respondent No.4 vide letter/communication dated 10.10.2006 directed to lodge an FIR against the petitioner, accordingly, an F.I.R., dated 14.12.2006 bearing Crime No.790 of 2006 for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodity Act, 1955 was lodged against the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that with regard to the appeal of the petitioner, according to the respondents, was already dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2006 and a bare perusal of the aforesaid order revealed that the said appeal which was at the instance of manufacturer M/s Paradeep Phosphate Limited for re-examination of fertilizer sample was rejected since the sample was found to be substandard, therefore, deserves no consideration. Even otherwise, provisions of Section 32 doesn't provide powers to the Appellate Authority to dismiss the appeal for reference analysis of such sample, as the provision stipulates that in case samples drawn and anaylzed by the State Government and found substandard, the aggrieved person may appeal to the notified Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of Analysis Report and request for referee analysis.

petitioners, who are partners of M/s Gurunanak Pesticides and Fertilizer Store, Rampura, were prosecuted for contravention of Section 19(1) (A) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) for selling sub-standard fertilizer. It was further alleged that the aforesaid firm had cheated the farmers by selling non- standard Single Super Phosphate Fertilizer and thereby the farmers had sufferd an irreparable loss."

16. In the present case, no allegation whatsoever has been made in the First Information Report concerning the manner in which the sample of Ammonium Sulfate Fertilizer was taken by Inspector concered. Neither the quantity of the fertilizer taken for the purposes of test was mentioned nor the container or the type of bag in which the sample of fertilizer was placed, finds mention in the First Information Report. According to Schedule II of the Order, 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. Thereafter, the said container should be put in a cloth bag which is to be sealed with the Inspector's in Form 'J/P' after putting inside the detailed description as specified in Form 'J/P. No plausible explanation has been put forth on behalf of the respondents as to why the procedure adopted for taking the sample, or, the manner in which the sample was actually taken doesn't find specific mention in the impugned First Information Report. Even otherwise, from the Panchnama prepared on the basis of inquiry conducted on 23.01.2007 in the petitioner's premises, it was found that while sealing the sample bags and applying the wax seal, the Fertilizer Inspector did not obtain the signatures of himself and the proprietor of the firm from whom the sample was taken on the sample bags and after obtaining the signatures of both parties, the sample bags were not sealed with a wax seal, therefore, such a sample does not hold reliability rather, it falls under suspicion. Since the aforesaid mandatory legal formalities were not observed or adhered to in the instant case, the impugned First Information Report and the consequent proceedings taken thereunder against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.