JUDGMENT:- Sri Paidimukkala Venkata Krishna Rao-A1 in S.T.C.No.4 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Essential Commodities Act-cum-Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Bum, had preferred the present criminal appeal, aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence imposed on him by the learned Judge, for the violation of Clauses 7,9, 19 and 23 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Order" for the purpose of convenience) read with Sections 7 and 8 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Act" for the purpose of convenience). 2. The charge-sheet is filed under the aforesaid provisions with the following allegations: 3. A.I is a resident of Prattipadu Village, Pentapadu Mandal and A.2 is a resident of Tadepalligudem Town. Both are close associates and doing Fertilisers business without licence. 4. On information that unlicenced business is being carried on in Fertilisers in Prattipadu Village, Pentapadu Mandal, P.W:8 visited Prattipadu Village on 7-12-1991 and arranged a trap to nab the unlicenced dealers. On 7-12-1991 at about 10.00 a.m. P.W.8, secured the presence of PW s.1 to 4 and went to a place nearby Anjaneyaswamy Temple. P.W.8 gave Rs.170/- to PW.I in the presence of P.Ws.2 to 4 and made him to confirm that he was having no other money and drafted a mahazar to that effect in the presence of the above mediators. P.W.8 asked PW.1 to purchase a bag of Factomphos and gave them a signal. Accordingly, PW.1 went to an unlicensed dealer viz., A-1, who was carrying on business, in the house of PW.5 and purchased a bag of Factomphos for Rs.170/- and gave a signal to the party. On receiving the same, P.W.8 along with the party went to the house of PW.5, where A-1 and A-2 were carrying on business. A-1 was present at that place and PW.1 showed him as the person who sold him the Fertiliser bag for Rs.170/ -. On being questioned. A-1 admitted about the selling of the bag and produced the amount given to him by PW.1. The numbers tallied with the numbers noted in the mahazar. Then, P.W.8 questioned about the other stocks held there. A-1 showed the godown and there were SPIC D.AP.176, Factomphos - 20-20 130 bags; Yield Top 10 Kgs. On being questioned. A-1 admitted about the selling of the bag and produced the amount given to him by PW.1. The numbers tallied with the numbers noted in the mahazar. Then, P.W.8 questioned about the other stocks held there. A-1 showed the godown and there were SPIC D.AP.176, Factomphos - 20-20 130 bags; Yield Top 10 Kgs. Bags 50 bags; Zinc - 50 bags, Shaw Zinc 50 Kgs.-11 bags: shaw Zinc 25 kgs. - 50 kgs-11 bags. When questioned about the Scooter (Bajaj Chetak), A-1 represented that it belongs to A-2, who is the person jointly doing business with him. P.Ws.2 and 4 collected the samples from the seized fertilizers, at the request of P.W.8 and sent them for analysis. 5. P.W.8 arrested A-1 and sent him for remand, and along with P.W.9 he investigated into the case. It is thus clear, that A-1 and A-2 were running Fertiliser business jointly, without licence, and hence, they became liable for punishment under Clauses I, 7, 9, 19 and 23 of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 read with Sections 7 and 8 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 6. A.1 and A.2 denied the allegations. The learned Judge recorded the evidence of PWs.1 to PW.6, and marked Exs.P-1 to Exs.P-11 and Mos.1 and 2. On behalf of the defence D.W. 1 was examined Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked. Inasmuch as there was no evidence to establish the guilt of A-2, who was said to be jointly doing business of fertilizer along with A1, an order of acquittal was recorded. But, A-1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 7. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant-A-1 made the following submissions: 8. But, A-1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 7. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant-A-1 made the following submissions: 8. The learned Counsel contended that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell or the Inspector of Police, CCS, are not the competent authorities either to conduct the search or seizure, when violation of certain clause of order are complained of in view of Clauses 26, 26(a), 27, 27(a) and 28 of the aforementioned Order, in other words, the learned Counsel would contend that unless the authorities are having the required qualifications, and also the notified officers under the provisions of the said order, they are not competent and they will not have any jurisdiction to conduct the search or seizure, even in a case of the allegation of a person transacting business even without 11 licence. The learned Counsel for substantiate his stand also placed reliance on certain decisions. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned Counsel also would contend that the analyst report which was marked as Exs.P-6 to P-8, Exs.P-10 and -P-11 also had not been proved in accordance with law, and hence, on this ground also, an acquittal may have to be recorded. The learned Counsel also further submitted that another peculiarity in the matter is that the trial was once conducted, and it was closed and at the stage of arguments, since the concerned Judicial officer was transferred, de novo trial was conducted and during the course of de novo trial, PWs.1 to 4 and PW.6 were examined again, on an application filed by the prosecution stating that the Sub-Inspector of Police, by name K. Nageswara Rao, who was examined as PW.7, in the earlier trial, died and hence, his evidence may be adopted as evidence of PW.5 and accordingly, the earlier deposition of the said Sub-Inspector of Police was adopted as PW.5. The learned Counsel in all fairness would submit that in view of the protection afforded to such statement under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no serious objection can be taken Lo the course adopted by the learned Judge, in adopting the deposition of PW.7, in the earlier trial as evidence of P.W.5 in the present trial in question. The learned Counsel also further pointed out that the stand of the Vigilance Officer is that PW.3 is the owner of the premises, where seizure had been effected, and in fact, P.W.3 was declared as hostile and he had deposed otherwise. The ownership of the premises itself had not been established and on that ground also, the version of the prosecution may have to be disbelieved. The learned Senior Counsel also had pointed out the relevant portion of the evidence of PW.5 relating to the house alleged to be a housing godown bearing Nos.5-2. 5-2, 5-3 and also the evidence of DW.1 and Exs.D-1 and D-2. The learned Counsel ultimately, would conclude that in the light of the serious infirmities in the prosecution version, the appellant is entitled to an acquittal. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand would contend that the question of competency of the Vigilance Officers in conducting search and seizure had not been questioned at any point of time, nor there was any cross-examination in this direction and for the first time, the said question is being raised before the appellate Court. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would contend that is a case of appellant transacting business without licence and hence, the Vigilance Officers definitely would have authority and jurisdiction to search and effect the seizure. Even other wise, the prosecution is taken by surprise at the appellate stage, since the said contention is being raised for the first time before this Court. The learned Counsel also would submit that the evidence available on record is clear and categorical and hence, the findings are to be confirmed. 10. Heard both sides. 11. The very version of the prosecution is that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were carrying on business in fertilizers without licence. It is no doubt true that Accused NO.2 was acquitted for want of evidence. PW.5 is the Sub-Inspector of police who conducted raid and found Accused No.1 carrying on business in fertilizers without licence. 10. Heard both sides. 11. The very version of the prosecution is that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were carrying on business in fertilizers without licence. It is no doubt true that Accused NO.2 was acquitted for want of evidence. PW.5 is the Sub-Inspector of police who conducted raid and found Accused No.1 carrying on business in fertilizers without licence. It appears from record that the trial was conducted and c10sed and at the stage of arguments, the concerned Judicial Officer was transferred and hence, de novo trial was conducted and during course of the de novo trial, PWs.1 to 4 and PW.6 were examined again on an application moved by the prosecution stating that SubInspector of Police by name K. Nageswara Rao who was examined as PW.7 in earlier trial died and hence, his evidence may be adopted as PW.5 in the present trial, and accordingly the said evidence was adopted as PW.5. 12. PW.5 deposed that at the relevant point of time he was working as S.I. of Police, S.B.C.I.D. Guntur. Previously he worked as S.I. of Police, Vigilance Department, Eluru from 2010-1990 to 15-5-1992. On 7-12-1991 on information he himself, staff, Deputy Director of from the seized stock and EX.P-3 is the receipt passed to him. 17. PW.6 is the Inspector of Police who deposed that he returned from leave on 10-121991 and he took up investigation and on 12-31992 he received analyst report of the seized stock from Asst. Director, Agriculture, Eluru and they are Exs.P-6 to P-8 and after receipt of those reports he also obtained sanction orders in this case from Special Inspector General of Police, Vigilance, Hyderabad. Ex.P-9 is the sanction order. Exs.P-6 to P-8 relates to Zinc Sulphate 21 % EDDA Zink 21 %. After receipt of Ex.P-9, he laid charge-sheet on 22-7 -1992. Exs.P-6 to P-8 were received from F.C.D. Laboratory, Rajendranagark. Exs.P-10 and P-11 are the analysis reports of Di-Ammonium Sulphate Spic Ltd., and Amonium Phasphate Sudlfats 20: 20 FACT Ltd., received from F.C.O laboratory, Warangal. The Sub-Inspector of Police K. Nageswara Rao died recently. It is needless to say that his evidence was adopted as PW.5 in this case. 18. As against these witnesses, DW.1 was examined. The Executive Officer, Prattipadu Gram Panchayat was examined as DW.1 and he deposed that Door No.5-1 is in the name of Sri Seetharama Raw and Boiled Rice Mill. The Sub-Inspector of Police K. Nageswara Rao died recently. It is needless to say that his evidence was adopted as PW.5 in this case. 18. As against these witnesses, DW.1 was examined. The Executive Officer, Prattipadu Gram Panchayat was examined as DW.1 and he deposed that Door No.5-1 is in the name of Sri Seetharama Raw and Boiled Rice Mill. Door No.5-2 is in the name of Sri Durga Raw and Boiled Rice Mill. Door No.5-3 is in the name of Tadisetti Gurunadham. He is giving evidence on seeing the door number register maintained by the Prattipadu Gram Panchayat. EX.D-1 is the Photostat copy of Door Number register of Prattipapudu Grampanchayat pertaining to 5-1, 5-2 and 5-3. This witness was examined with a view to falsify the version of the prosecution relating to the ownership of the godowns and' consequently to create a doubt about the very search and seizure by the Vigilance Department. 19. The Central Government made the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of E.C. Act. 20. Clause 7 of the said order deals with registration of industrial dealers and authorization of other dealers. Clause 9 of the said Order deals with grant or refusal of certificate of registration. Clause 19 of the said Order deals with restriction on manufacture, (import), sale and distribution of fertilizers and Clause 23 of the said Order deals with disposal of non-standard fertilisers. 21. These are the relevant provisions of the order read with provisions of the Act, with which the appellant/Accused No.1 had been charged with. Clause 26 deals with appointment of registering authority, which reads as hereunder: "The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such number of persons, as it thinks necessary, to be registering authorities for the purpose of this Order (xxx), and may, in any such notification, define the limits of local area within which each such registering authority shall exercise his jurisdiction." 22. Clause 26-A of the said Order deals with notified authority. Clause 26-A of the said Order deals with notified authority. Clause 27 deals with appointment of Inspectors, which reads as hereunder: "The State Government, or the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such number of persons, as it thinks necessary, to be inspectors of fertilisers for the purpose of this Order, and may, in any such notification, define the limits of local area within which each such inspector shall exercise his jurisdiction." Clause 27(A) deals with qualifications for appointment of Fertiliser Inspector, which reads as hereunder: "No person shall be eligible for appointment as Fertilizer Inspector under this order, unless he possesses the following qualifications, namely,(1) graduate in Agriculture or Science with Chemistry as one of the subjects, from a recognized University, and (2) training or experience in the quality control of fertilisers and working in the State or Central Department of Agriculture. Clause 28 deals with powers of Inspectors, which reads hereunder: (1) An inspector may, with a view to securing compliance with this Order: (a) require any manufacturer, (importer), pool handling agency, wholesale dealer to give any information in his possession with respect to the manufacture (impose), storage and disposal of any fertilizer manufactured or, in any manner handled by him; (b) draw samples of any fertilizer in accordance with the procedure of drawal of samples laid down in Schedule II: Provided that the inspector shall prepare the sampling detail in duplicate in form J, and handover one copy of the same to the dealer or his representative from whom the sample has been drawn; (c) enter upon and search any premises where any fertilizer is manufactured or stored or exhibited for sale, if he has reason to believe that 'any fertilizer has been or is being manufactured sold, offered for sale, stored, exhibited for sale or distributed contrary to the provisions of this Order; (d) seize or detain any fertilizer in respect of which he has reason to believe that a contravention of this Order has been or is being or is (attempted to be committed); (e) seize any books of accounts or documents relating to manufacture, (import), storage or sale of fertilizers, etc., in respect of which he has reason to believe that any contravention of this order has been or is being or is about to be committed. Provided that the Inspector shall give a receipt for such fertilizers or books of accounts or documents so seized to the person from whom the same have been seized; Provided further that the books of accounts or documents so seized shall be returned to the person from whom they were seized after copies thereof or extracts there from, as certified by such person, have been taken. (Provided also that the Inspector shall give the stop sale notice, in writing, to the person whose stocks have been detained and initiate appropriate actions as per the provisions of this Order within a period of twenty one days. If no action has been initiated by the inspector within the said period of 21 days from the date of issue of the said notice, the notice of stop sale shall be deemed to have been revoked.) (2) subject to the proviso to paragraphs (d) and (e) of sub-clause-I, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974) relating to search and seizure shall, so far as may be, apply to searches and seizures under this clause. (3) Where any fertilizer is seized by an Inspector under this clause, he shall forthwith report the fact of such seizure to the Collector whereupon the provision of Section 6-A, 6-B, 6-C, 6-D and 6-E of the Act shall apply to the custody, disposal and confiscation of such fertilizers. (4) Every person, if so required, by an Inspector, shall be bound to afford all necessary facilities to him for the purpose of enabling him to exercise his powers under subclause (1). These clauses fall under Chapter VII dealing with Enforcement authorities 23. On the strength of these provisions, submissions were at length made by the learned Senior Counsel representing appellant/Accused No.1 that Vigilance Sub-Inspector has no authority or jurisdiction, since evidently, he is not the notified officer nor he is having requisite qualifications specified under the clauses referred to supra and hence, the very search and seizure made by him is without authority or jurisdiction and hence, the proceedings are vitiated. 24. In District and Sessions Judge, Guntur Vs. 24. In District and Sessions Judge, Guntur Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 (1) ALD (Cri.) 268 (AP), the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with certain provisions of the Order and the constitutionality thereof observed at Paragraph No.4, which reads as follows: "It is true that there is no provisions for the dealer/manufacturer facing the case for cancellation of licence/registration for violation or facing the criminal prosecution, for getting the sample tested from an independent analyst and if the said right is denied, certainly, it will be violative of Article 14 of Indian Constitution and so also Article 21. It may also be said that the same is not a reasonable restriction. But, on that count, the provision deed not be struck down for the reasons that the Essential Commodities Act aims at real Constitutional goal of securing equitable distribution of fertilizers to all the community and at prices notified and also aiming at unadulterated fertiliser coming upto the standard specification. Due process which has been incorporated in Article 21 does not mean that any law made by the legislative body can be taken on the face value without going into the contents as to whether the said law provides a fair procedure or not. Certainly, if the accused is denied of his right to get the sample given to him tested by independent analyst, should he want it, he should be given a chance for doing so and such a procedure will conform to fairness, or otherwise, it will not. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court in Ushanna Goud Vs. Commissioner of Excise, 1993 ALT Supp. (1) 209, held that the accused is entitled to get the sample tested through an independent agency and not providing the same will be violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Indian Constitution. In the said case, rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, by amendment, took away the right of the accused getting 3rd sample and depriving him of getting the same tested by independent agency and that was held to be in constitutional. The principle laid down there in is equally applicable in the instant case. But, for the reason that there is no provision made to get the third sample tested from independent analyst, the provision contained under Fertiliser (Control) Order cannot be set at naught. The principle laid down there in is equally applicable in the instant case. But, for the reason that there is no provision made to get the third sample tested from independent analyst, the provision contained under Fertiliser (Control) Order cannot be set at naught. Clause 19 does not suffer from any vice of unconstitutionality, merely because clause 28 of Schedule II does not contain a provision enabling the person accused of violation to get the third sample tested from an independent analyst. What is not provided under the regulation can always be supplemented by a direction of this Court so as to read the said provision conforming to the fundamental rights and particularly, Articles 14 and 21 in the instant case. Three samples have to be drawn and one sample has to be given to the accused and the same cannot State be dispensed with. The purpose of giving the sample to the accused becomes nugatory, if he is not given a right to get it tested by an independent agency. That apart, the fair procedure is violated by not providing such a right. Such a right should be read into the Fertiliser (Control) Order and Schedule II appended to it. 25. Strong reliance was also placed on Singarasu Venkayamma Vs. State, Excise Inspector, Chirala Excise Range, 1999(1) ALD (Cri.) 935 (AP), wherein the question of legality of the search and the competency of Excise Inspector within the meaning of Section 42 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 had fallen for consideration and the learned Judge at Para No.15 held as follows: "According to this section, as far as State Government is concerned any officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy of constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department who is empowered by general or specific order of the State Government has the power of entry, search and seizure without warrant or authorization. This Section further requires that power under Section 42 can be exercised by an authorized officer if he has reason to believe that an offence punishable under Chapter IV has been committed. In case of information received from some other source not being personal knowledge there is further rider that it must be reduced to writing. This Section further requires that power under Section 42 can be exercised by an authorized officer if he has reason to believe that an offence punishable under Chapter IV has been committed. In case of information received from some other source not being personal knowledge there is further rider that it must be reduced to writing. These safeguards in Section 42 are mandatory and the facts of the present case reveal that the search was conducted on the basis of information received by the Excise Officials which was not reduced to writing, even the Inspector stated that he was not aware of the procedure to be followed under N.D.P.S. Act. Therefore, there has been a violation of Section 42. The prosecution also has not at any point of time stated that the Excise Inspector was an authorized Officer within the meaning of Section 42 of the Act. It is not sufficient to be an Inspector of Excise or an Officer of the Government above a certain rank to have the powers of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant, but it is necessary for such officials that they must have been authorized by the Government either by a general order or by a special order. Neither in the statement of witnesses nor from the record of the case it has been shown that the witnesses who conducted the search, arrested the accused were authorized by the State Government in terms of Section 42 of N.D.P.S. Act." 26. In Roy V. D. Vs. State of Kerala, 2000(7) Supreme 430 : [2001 ALL MR (Cri) 163 (S.C.)], the Apex Court while dealing with Sections 41 and 42 read with Sections 20(b)(i) and 36-A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, held as follows: "It is plain that no officer other than an empowered officer can resort to Section 41 (2) or exercise powers under Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act or make a complaint under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 36-A of the NDPS Act. It follows that any collection of material, detention or arrest of a person or search of a building or conveyance or seizure effected by an officer not being an empowered officer or an authorized officer under Section 41 (2) of the NDPS Act, lacks sanction of law and is inherently illegal and as such the same cannot form the basis of a proceeding in respect of offences under Chapter IV of the NDPS Act and use of such a material by the prosecution vitiates the trial." 27. In Boyina Samba Murthy and Sons, Tekkali, Srikakulam District, rep. by Its Partners Sri Boyina Samba Murthy Vs. The MandailRevenue Officer, Tekkali, Srikakulam District and others, 1988(2) APLJ 288 , while dealing with clauses 19 and 20 of the order and the inspection made by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the verification made by the Assistant Director of Agriculture and the seizure of fertilizers consequent upon the said inspection and verification, held as follows: "Clauses 19 and 20 of the Fel1ilizer (Control) Order 1957, clearly show that the Central Government or the State Government has to appoint the Inspector of Fertilizer for the purpose of carrying out and implementation of the order and clause (20) empowers the said Inspector to inspect and verify the accounts and stocks and in case there is a violation of the order he may seize the stocks and accounts. The control order is one of the control orders o issued under Section 3 of the E.C. Act, 1955. Therefore, in implementing the said Control Order it is necessary that the persons appointed under the said control Order adhere to the provisions of the said control order while exercising the power. It is also necessary that the powers conferred under clause (20) of the said Control Order must be exercised only by an Inspector of Fertilizer as appointed under Clause (19). But the same cannot be exercised by any person unless he is appointed as such under clause 19." 28. Reliance was also placed on Santa Kumar Das and another Vs. The State, 1990 Cri.L.J. 1559, a decision of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, wherein it was held as follows: "Under the organizational set up, Enforcement Branch, Calcutta and District Enforcement Branch are different establishments. One who is attached to Enforcement Branch, Calcutta, cannot at the same time be attached to the District Enforcement Branch. The State, 1990 Cri.L.J. 1559, a decision of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, wherein it was held as follows: "Under the organizational set up, Enforcement Branch, Calcutta and District Enforcement Branch are different establishments. One who is attached to Enforcement Branch, Calcutta, cannot at the same time be attached to the District Enforcement Branch. Where the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the District Enforcement Branch conducted the search, initiated the proceeding and submitted the charge-sheet on 17th October, 1982 for violation of the provision of Para 21 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order. 1957, when he was' not authorized to act as the Inspector of Fertilizers the proceeding taken by such Sub-Inspector was without jurisdiction. 29. Sub-Inspector of police and all officers above the rank of Sub-Inspector who are attached to District Enforcement Branch have also been appointed to act as Inspectors of Fertilizers under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957, in view of West Bengal Notification No.2702-Fert. Dated 17-9-1974 as amended on 17-2-1983 and 1-2-1984. A Sub-Inspector of police if attached to the Enforcement Branch could have only acted as Inspector under the said order until the amendment was affected on 17th February, 1983 when all officers of and above the rank of Sub-Inspector attached also to District enforcement Branch have been empowered to act as Inspector of Fertilizers under the said Control Order. Attachment to the district Enforcement Branch is the decisive factor. Any sub-inspector of police or any officer above the rank of Sub-Inspector who at the material time was attached to the District Enforcement Branch, could not act as the Inspector of Fertilizers." 30. In Rajkumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, 1997 FAJ 153, where the search and seizure was made by a Probationary I.A.S. Officer and in view of the fact that there was no notification that he was the Inspector and such proceedings were held to be illegal and liable to be quashed. 31. On this aspect, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, would, contend that though the search and seizure in the present case were conducted by the Vigilance Department, there is some material to show that an Officer relating to Agriculture Department also was present and in view of the fact that the said contention is being raised for the first time in appeal, an opportunity to be given to the prosecution to further substantiate this contention. It is pertinent to note that in the first trial, PW.7 was examined. PW.7 in the first trial was, SubInspector of police, Vigilance who had conducted raid of the search and seizure and his evidence was adopted as PW.5 in the light of the fact that he is no more. Apart from this aspect of the matter, except marking Exs.P-6 to P-8, P-10 and P-11 through the investigating Officer, Inspector of police Vigilance (PW.6), there is no other evidence available on record in further proof thereof. In M/s. Visakha Agro Chemicals (P) Ltd., Viskhapatnam and others Vs. Fertilizer Inspector-cum-Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular) Visakhapatnam and another, 1997(1) ALT (Cri.) 514 (AP), while dealing with the similar question the learned Judge held as follows: "In the wake of the above submissions this Court is called upon to examine whether Ex.P-4 certificate issued by the Fertiliser Quality Controller can be accepted as evidence without the author being examined by the prosecution to prove the document. The provisions under Section 293 Cr.P.C., has been examined by me. This provisions applies to the following cases viz., (a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government; (b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives; (c) the director of the Finger Print Bureau; (d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay; (e) the Director (Deputy Director or Assistant Director) of a Central forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory; (f) the Serologist to the Government. 32. These six categories of officers who issue certain documents, their documents have to be accepted by the Court as valid evidence without examining the author of those documents. Unlike the provisions contemplated under Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 which provides for exempting the author of the documents issued by these authorities for the purpose of accepting the documents as evidence in the Court, the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985 does not exempt the author of the documents from examining him in the Court for the purpose of accepting the document issued by him as sufficient evidence, even though they are not examined. 33. In the absence of such provision available in the Fertilizer Control Order, I am inclined to say, in the light of the provisions of Section 293 Cr.P.C. the prosecution ought to have taken steps to examine the author of the documents-Ex.P-4. 33. In the absence of such provision available in the Fertilizer Control Order, I am inclined to say, in the light of the provisions of Section 293 Cr.P.C. the prosecution ought to have taken steps to examine the author of the documents-Ex.P-4. Non-examining the author of the document-Ex.P-4, in my considered view, is fatal to the prosecution case to convict the accused for committing the offence under these provisions when the prosecution case depends only on the report issued by the authority under the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. 34. In the light of the fact that the Vigilance Sub-Inspector, who had conducted the first search and seizure may be in the presence of an Agriculture Officer, in view of the fact that he is no more, this Court is of the considered opinion that though the question of the authority of competency and jurisdiction of the said Officer is raised at the appellate stage, no purpose would be served by remitting the matter back again. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the ownership of the premises from which the stocks are said to have been seized also had not been proved. PW.3 was declared hostile, the evidence of D.W.1 would throw some doubt relating to this aspect and on this ground also the appellant/accused No.1 is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of any material placed before the Court showing the competency of the concerned officer to effect the search and seizure especially, in the light of the clear provisions specified supra in the order, this Court is of the considered opinion that appellant/accused No.1 is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 35. Accordingly the appeal is hereby allowed, setting aside the conviction and the sentence imposed on the appellant/accused No.1. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled. It is needless to say that the appellant Accused No.1 is entitled to refund of the fine amount paid by him.