Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 71 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Sohan Lal

2003-01-15

S.S.GREWAL

body2003
JUDGMENT S.S. Grewal, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.8.1989 passed by Shri M.L. Singhal, Special Judge, Patiala whereby the appellants had been ordered to be acquitted in Sessions Case No. 1 of 3.1.1989. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.6.1985, Shri Rajwant Singh, Fertilizer Inspector, Samana along with Shri Tarlochan Singh, Agriculture Officer raided the premises of M/s. Samana Agro Kheti Centre, Samana. He checked the godown of the said firm in the presence of Shri Tarlochan Singh, Agriculture Officer. There were 110 bags of Super Phosphate and also some bags of urea of Super Pooja Brand found lying. This fertilizer was manufactured by M/s. Moonak Chemical, Bathinda. He took six bags at random. These bags were lying stitched mechanically and those were polythene bags. Sampled quantity was taken out with a probe. Sampled quantity weighed 1500 grams approximately. Sampled quantity was placed on a clean paper and was thoroughly mixed. Sampled quantity was divided into three equal parts and each part was put in three clean and dry polythene bags. After each part was put in a separate dry and clean polythene bag, the said polythene bag was again put in another polythene bags. Each of the resultant polythene bag was made air-tight. A chit containing the particulars of the dealer, quantity, name of the fertilizers, percentage of the fertilizers and name of the Inspector was put in each polythene bag. Each polythene bag was sealed with seal bearing impression 8. A seizure memo Ex. PC was prepared which was attested by Shri Rajwant Singh and Shri Tarlochan Singh, Agriculture Officer. It was signed by Sohan Lal dealer. Sohan Lal was present at the time of sampling. One sample part was delivered to Sohan Lal. On 26.6.1985, he deposited the samples in the office of Chief Agriculture Officer Patiala intact along with seizure memo with the Enforcement Inspector. Two seals were affixed on seizure memo. Shri Rajwant Singh did not tamper with the seal of the samples till it remained with him. He was authorised to seize samples of fertilizers from their dealers with a view to have them analysed under the Fertilizer Control Order. One sample part was sent to Analytical Chemist, Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana, who vide report Ex. PB found the sample sub-standard. He was authorised to seize samples of fertilizers from their dealers with a view to have them analysed under the Fertilizer Control Order. One sample part was sent to Analytical Chemist, Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana, who vide report Ex. PB found the sample sub-standard. On receipt of the report of Analytical Chemist, Shri Deep Singh Sahota, Chief Agriculture Officer, Patiala wrote letter Ex. PA to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala for the registration of the case against M/s. Samana Agro Kheti Centre, Samana and M/s. Moonak Chemicals Ltd., Bathinda under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Section 13(i)(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957. On the basis of this letter, formal F.I.R. Ex. PA/1 was registered by ASI Gurbhajan Singh of Police Station Samana. After investigation, dealers M/s. Bir Bhan Sohan Lal, who are partners of M/s. Samana Agro Kheti Centre, Samana and Shri Prabhu Dutt Sharma, who is Plant Manager of M/s. Moonak Chemical Ltd., Bhatinda, the manufacturer of this fertilizer, were challaned. A prima facie case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with section 13(1)(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 was made out against the accused and they were charge sheeted for the same. Charge was read-over to the accused in simple Punjabi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined Shri Deep Singh Sahota, Chief Agriculture Officer, Patiala (PW1), Shri Bhupinder Singh, Analytical Chemist, Fertilizer Control Laboratory, Ludhiana (PW2), Shri Rajwant Singh, Fertilizer Inspector, Samana (PW3), ASI Gurbhajan Singh (PW4), Shri Iqbal Singh, Sales Representative, Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., Patiala (PW5), Shri Narinder Singh, Agriculture Enforcement Inspector (PW9), Shri Darshan Singh Agriculture Inspector (PW6), SI Gurmel Singh (PW7), HC Mohinder Singh (PW8) and Shri Tarun Behal, Manager Administration, Moonak Chemical Ltd., Bhatinda (PW9). 4. Accused when examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code denied the imputations appearing in prosecution evidence against them. Shri Prabhu Dutt Sharma stated that he was not concerned with the process of manufacturing the said brand of fertilizer nor with the quality of supply thereof. Sohan Lal and Bir Bhan accused stated that sample was taken only out of two bags of Super Phosphate of Pooja Brand. They were mechanically stitched bags. Super Phosphate Pooja Brand was fertilizer manufactured by Moonak Chemicals Ltd., Bhatinda. Sohan Lal and Bir Bhan accused stated that sample was taken only out of two bags of Super Phosphate of Pooja Brand. They were mechanically stitched bags. Super Phosphate Pooja Brand was fertilizer manufactured by Moonak Chemicals Ltd., Bhatinda. Total weight of the sample was less than 500 grams. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has argued that proper procedure had been followed while taking the sample of fertilizer. If the weight of the sample was recorded above 500 grams, it casts no doubt. The procedure as provided under Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 had been followed properly. Sample was taken in polythene bags which is moisture proof. Even if it is not taken as per Clause. I of Schedule II to the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, this will not adversely affect the result of Chemical Analysis. Whereas learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the provisions of Schedule II provide that the sample shall be mixed as thoroughly as possible and be kept in an air tight glass or other suitable container but not in polythene bag. It further provides that each part of the sample should not be less than 500 grams. Therefore, the proper procedure has not been followed in this case. So, the appeal should be dismissed. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the sampling was kept in polythene bags. There is no evidence on record that it was air tight or that the moisture had not adversely affected the chemical analysis. However, as per Schedule-II to the Control Order, each sample was not to be taken of 500 grams. In this case it was taken by approximation. So, the impugned judgment of the learned Lower Court does not call for any interference and is valid. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.