M/S Tata Chemicals Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1060496
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMar-15-2013
AppellantM/S Tata Chemicals Ltd. and Another
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
crm no.38473 of 2012 (o&m) 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm no.38473 of 2012 (o&m) date of decision:15. 3.2013 m/s tata chemicals ltd.and another ......petitioners versus state of punjab .......respondent coram: hon'ble mrs.justice sabina present: mr.mansur ali, advocate and mr.h.s.deol, advocate, for the petitioners.mr.k.d.s.sidhu, addl.a.g, punjab. **** sabina, j. petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint no.141 dated 8.1.2009/ 21.5.2012 dated 8.1.2009 titled 'state through chief agricultural officer, faridkot versus m/s india agro service and others.registered under section 19 (a) (c ) (v) of fertilizer (control) order, 1985 and section 7 of the essential commodities act, 1955 (the act for short) read with section 12 aa of the act (annexure p-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 8.1.2009 (annexure p- crm no.38473 of 2012 (o&m”3. .learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were merely supplying the fertilizer prepared by the manufacturer. the samples in question were drawn from the stitched bags. in case any lapse had been committed qua quality of the fertilizer, the manufacturer was liable for the same. learned state counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the trial in the present case had commenced and hence, the petition was liable to be dismissed. after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned state counsel, i am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. complaint in question was registered on the basis of the complaint submitted by chief agricultural officer. prosecution story, in brief, is that on 31.5.2007, fertilizer inspector had inspected the shop of m/s india agro service kotkapura. the proprietor of the shop was present there. the inspector disclosed his identity to the proprietor of the shop and intimated to him his desire to draw sample of single super phosphate 16% (paras brand) manufactured by m/s liberty phosphate ltd., udaipur and marketed by m/s tata chemicals ltd., udaipur. 600 bags (50 kgs packing each) bearing batch number .022 were found lying in the shop. the bags were in polythene packing, which were machine stitched. five bags from the stock of 600 bags were selected and samples were drawn from the said five bags by crm no.38473 of 2012 (o&m) 3 inserting clean and dry wooden rod and compoisite sample from the said five bags was prepared. as per the report of the analyst, the fertilizer was declared sub-standard as it contained only 15.71% phosphorous contents. annexure p-2 is the copy of the ‘j’ form. a perusal of the same also reveals that the samples had been drawn from the machine stitched bags. thus, in the present case, admittedly, the sample in question had been drawn from the stitched bags. the fertilizer was being manufactured by m/s liberty phosphate ltd., udaipur. petitioners were marketing the fertilizer manufactured by m/s liberty phosphate ltd., udaipur supplied in stitched bags. as per the complaint itself, the samples had been drawn from the bags which were duly stitched. petitioners are not the manufacturers of the fertilizer in question. a perusal of complaint (annexure p-1) reveals that there is no allegation in the same that the bags in question had been tampered with. thus, if the sample was found to be sub- standard then only the manufacturer can be said to be liable not the petitioners.who are only marketing the fertilizer. accordingly, this petition is allowed. criminal complaint no.141 dated 8.1.2009/ 21.5.2012 dated 8.1.2009 titled 'state through chief agricultural officer, faridkot versus m/s india agro service and others.registered under section 19 (a) (c ) (v) of fertilizer (control) order, 1985 and section 7 read with section 12 aa of the crm no.38473 of 2012 (o&m) 4 act (annexure p-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 8.1.2009 (annexure p- 3).qua the petitioners.are quashed. (sabina) judge march 15, 2013 anita
Judgment:

CRM No.38473 of 2012 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM No.38473 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:

15. 3.2013 M/s Tata Chemicals LTD.and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Mansur Ali, Advocate and Mr.H.S.Deol, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.K.D.S.Sidhu, Addl.A.G, Punjab.

**** SABINA, J.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint No.141 dated 8.1.2009/ 21.5.2012 dated 8.1.2009 titled 'State through Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot versus M/s India Agro Service and otheRs.registered under Section 19 (a) (c ) (v) of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act for short) read with Section 12 AA of the Act (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 8.1.2009 (Annexure P- CRM No.38473 of 2012 (O&M”

3. .Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were merely supplying the fertilizer prepared by the manufacturer.

The samples in question were drawn from the stitched bags.

In case any lapse had been committed qua quality of the fertilizer, the manufacturer was liable for the same.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the trial in the present case had commenced and hence, the petition was liable to be dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

Complaint in question was registered on the basis of the complaint submitted by Chief Agricultural Officer.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 31.5.2007, Fertilizer Inspector had inspected the shop of M/s India Agro Service Kotkapura.

The proprietor of the shop was present there.

The inspector disclosed his identity to the proprietor of the shop and intimated to him his desire to draw sample of Single Super Phosphate 16% (Paras Brand) manufactured by M/s Liberty Phosphate Ltd., Udaipur and marketed by M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd., Udaipur.

600 bags (50 kgs packing each) bearing batch number .022 were found lying in the shop.

The bags were in polythene packing, which were machine stitched.

Five bags from the stock of 600 bags were selected and samples were drawn from the said five bags by CRM No.38473 of 2012 (O&M) 3 inserting clean and dry wooden rod and compoisite sample from the said five bags was prepared.

As per the report of the analyst, the fertilizer was declared sub-standard as it contained only 15.71% phosphorous contents.

Annexure P-2 is the copy of the ‘J’ form.

A perusal of the same also reveals that the samples had been drawn from the machine stitched bags.

Thus, in the present case, admittedly, the sample in question had been drawn from the stitched bags.

The fertilizer was being manufactured by M/s Liberty Phosphate Ltd., Udaipur.

Petitioners were marketing the fertilizer manufactured by M/s Liberty Phosphate Ltd., Udaipur supplied in stitched bags.

As per the complaint itself, the samples had been drawn from the bags which were duly stitched.

Petitioners are not the manufacturers of the fertilizer in question.

A perusal of complaint (Annexure P-1) reveals that there is no allegation in the same that the bags in question had been tampered with.

Thus, if the sample was found to be sub- standard then only the manufacturer can be said to be liable not the petitioneRs.who are only marketing the fertilizer.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

Criminal complaint No.141 dated 8.1.2009/ 21.5.2012 dated 8.1.2009 titled 'State through Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot versus M/s India Agro Service and otheRs.registered under Section 19 (a) (c ) (v) of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and Section 7 read with Section 12 AA of the CRM No.38473 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Act (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 8.1.2009 (Annexure P- 3).qua the petitioneRs.are quashed.

(SABINA) JUDGE March 15, 2013 anita