Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Sarup Chand and three other partners of M/s. Garg Kishan Sewa Centre, Tapa Mandi, have filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing FIR No. 5 dated 13-1-1991 registered at Police Station, Tapa Mandi against the petitioners under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 19(i)(a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16-7-1990 the Fertilizer Inspector Shri Kewal Krishan took a sample of fertilizer to SSP of 1 & T Super' brand from the premises of the firm of the petitioners and the same was sent for analysis to Analytical Chemist (Incharge) Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana. The analyst submitted his report dated 31-8-1990 to the effect that the sample of the fertilizer was non standard. On the basis of this report the Chief Agricultural Officer, Sangrur sent a complaint to Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, for the registration of a case against the petitioners and the case was registered against the petitioners and the case was registered against Sarup Chand partner of firm of M/s. Garg Kisan Sewa Centre, Tapa Mandi and M/s. Agro Chemicals Private Limited, Dhillon Complex, Mani Majra.

3. The petitioners alleged that the allegations contained in the FIR even if taken to be wholly correct did not disclose the commission of any offence. The free acidity and free phosphoric acid found in the sample did not damage the crop or soil and was not at all injurious or harmful and as such the farmers were not cheated agronomically or financially. The petitioners firm got the fertilizer in machine stitched bags from the manufacturer company and it sold the same without opening or without even knowing its contents. So, no fault was attributable to the petitioners and the manufacturers were directly responsible with respect to the contents of the fertilizer contained in the machine-stitched bags. It was further alleged that the sample in question was analysed higher in free acidity as phosphoric acid and the same was only possible if phosphoric acid was added in the material. Since this acid was very expensive as compared to the super phosphate so no person will add it. The minor increase of free acidity in the sample in question was not harmful to anybody and was due only on account of natural reaction of free phosphoric acid with rock phosphate. The manner in which the sample of super phosphate fertilizer was taken by the inspector was also not proper as neither the quantity of the fertilizer taken nor the types of bags in which the sample was put was mentioned and the FIR was liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

7. It was next urged on behalf of the petitioners that the sample in question was not taken by the fertilizer inspector as per rules and he did not disclose the quantity of the fertilizer taken for the purpose of test nor the container in which the sample was put. According to Schedule-II of the order the sample was to be kept in suitable clean, dry and airtight glass or screwed hard polythene bottle of about 400 grams capacity or in a thick gauged polythene bag and after that the container was to be put in a cloth bag which was to be sealed with the Inspector's seal. As these provisions had not been complied with, the FIR was liable to be quashed. The learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Gian Chand Luthra v. State of Punjab, (1988) 2 Chand LR (Cri) 652. In this case the sample of fertilizer was found to be sub-standard vide report of the Public Analyst, but the precise weight of the sample was not noted while sending the same for analysis nor the sample was placed in suitable clean dry and air-tight glass or other proper container and stored in shade. It was held that mandatory legal formalities were not preserved in that case. Consequently the proceedings were quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C.

8. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel and I find that the same is not tenable in view of the facts of the present case. A perusal of the impugned FIR will show that the sample in the case was properly taken and all the details regarding the manner in which the sample was taken found mentioned in the report itself. The sample was taken on a clean news paper sheet, it was thoroughly mixed and three representative samples were prepared each weighing about 500 grams in a thick gauged polythene bags. Containers were made free of air by tightly fastening the opening with a thick thread and the containers were transferred into cloth bags along with form 'J'. In Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab (1993) 2 Rec Cri R 145 it was held that sample of fertilizer was to be taken in a manner laid down in Fertilizer (Control) order, but it was not necessary to mention in the FIR that sample was taken in a manner laid down in the Fertilizer (Control) Order. By this judgment the authority on which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance was overruled. The first information report in question, thus, does not suffer from any infirmity and is not liable to be quashed on the ground that the sample was not properly taken.