Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1465 (AP)

GODAVARI CHEMICALS, DOWLESWARAM v. STATE OF A. P.

2006-11-22

GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

body2006
( 1 ) THE appellants were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, East Godavari at rajahmundry in S. T. C. No. 5 of 1999 for the alleged offences punishable under section 19 (a) of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 (for short the Control order) r/w Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: a. 1-M/s. Godavari Chemicals is a manufacturing company of Zinc Sulphate 21% and a. 2 is the proprietor of A. 1. On 20. 06. 1996, P. W. 3-Fertiliser Inspector and agricultural Officer, Rajahmundry (Rural) visited the manufacturing unit of A. 1, inspected the zinc sulphate and drawn four samples of zinc sulphate from four lots. He has drawn 2 Kgs zinc sulphate from 80 bags of 10 Kgs each, and after following due procedure, handed over one sample along with Forms K and J to A. 2 under proper acknowledgement. He also sent one sample for analysis by registered parcel to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, F. C. O Laboratory, Anantapur, who tested the sample and gave a report opining that the said sample was not as per the specifications. On receipt of the said report, P. W. 3 inspected the factory of A. 1 on 16. 07. 1996 and on verification of stock register and godown he found that there was no stock of zinc sulphate available in the premises. He handed over the analyst report to A. 2 and seized stock register, bill books and conducted panchanama in the presence of mediators, and on the same day, he handed over the records to the Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), rajahmundry, who issued a letter to A. 1 to furnish the names and addresses of the persons in-charge of production, marketing and chemist by registered post. In pursuance of the said letter, A. 2 furnished the particulars of the responsible persons including herself, who was also in-charge of production. After obtaining necessary permission to prosecute A. 1 and A. 2, the Assistant director of Agriculture, Rajahmundry lodged a complaint, which was taken on file as S. T. C. No. 5 of 1999. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 5 and got marked exs. P. 1 to P. 11. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the accused. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 5 and got marked exs. P. 1 to P. 11. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the accused. ( 2 ) ON analysis of the above said evidence, the learned Judge having held that the accused are guilty of the said offences and sentenced the first accused to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and the second accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four weeks. As against the said judgment, the accused preferred this appeal. Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has drawn my attention to Clause 30 of the Control Order and contended that any sample collected shall be sent to the laboratory within a period of seven days from the date of its drawal and in the instant case, there is absolutely no proof establishing the said fact. In support of his contention, he has drawn my attention to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharastra v. Rajkaran. ( 3 ) IT is true that Clause 30 of the Control Order prescribes the time limit of seven days for dispatch of the sample and the said provision, in my considered view, is mandatory and any deviation from the said provision would be to the benefit of the accused persons. But, in the instant case, the Agricultural officer, who was examined as P. W. 3, has clearly stated that he inspected the business premises of A. 1 on 20. 06. 1996 and collected the sample. There cannot be any dispute about the said date, since Forms J and K, which are indicating the particulars of fertilizer sample etc. , are also dated 20. 06. 2006, and the manager of A. 1-firm also signed on Form J on 20. 06. 2006. Thus, it is clear that the alleged inspection had taken place on 20. 06. 1996. There is also no dispute about the receipt of the said sample by the analyst, as Ex. P. 1- analyst report establishes the fact that the sample was received by him on 01. 07. 1996 and the analysis has taken place from 01. 07. 1996 to 04. 07. 1996. 06. 1996. There is also no dispute about the receipt of the said sample by the analyst, as Ex. P. 1- analyst report establishes the fact that the sample was received by him on 01. 07. 1996 and the analysis has taken place from 01. 07. 1996 to 04. 07. 1996. Thus, the gap between the drawal of the sample and receipt of the same by the analyst is ten days i. e. , from 20. 06. 1996 to 01. 07. 1996. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants tried to impress upon this Court contending that the sample was not sent on 21. 06. 1996 as spoken to by P. W. 3, and if really it was sent on that date, it would not take nine days time for the analyst to receive the said sample. He also contended that the postal receipt establishes the fact that whether it was dispatched on 21. 06. 1996 itself or not, but the same has not been produced. ( 5 ) IT is true that P. W. 3 in his evidence has stated that the sample along with forms J and K were sent by registered post on the next day i. e. , on 21. 06. 1996. The very purpose of mandate is that the samples shall be sent within the prescribed period to ensure that the quality of the said sample is not lost, otherwise there is possibility of getting a wrong report during the course of analysis. But, it must be borne in mind that if the gap between the date of drawal of sample and receipt of the same is too long, probably it requires the prosecution to establish the said fact that it was transported within seven days as mandated under Clause 30 of the Control Order. In the instant case, as stated above, the gap between the drawal of the sample and the receipt of the same by the analyst is only ten days, it can safely be presumed that the said sample was sent on or before 27. 06. 1996 and it was received by the analyst at anantapur on 01. 07. 1996. When once it was sent through the registered post from rajahmundry to Anantapur in the normal course it takes minimum period of three days. Further, as per the calendar, 30. 06. 1996 happened to be a Sunday. 06. 1996 and it was received by the analyst at anantapur on 01. 07. 1996. When once it was sent through the registered post from rajahmundry to Anantapur in the normal course it takes minimum period of three days. Further, as per the calendar, 30. 06. 1996 happened to be a Sunday. Hence, even if it is presumed that the said sample was sent by P. W. 3 on 27. 06. 1996, it must have been received by the Laboratory at Anantapur on 01. 07. 1996. Further, as per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court can presume certain things. Hence, the contention that there is absolutely no proof to establish the fact that the sample was sent within seven days from the date of its drawal, cannot be accepted. ( 6 ) UNDER the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Court below has rightly convicted the appellants for violating the provisions under Section 19 (a) of the Control Order. Thus, I see no merits in this appeal. However, taking into consideration the fact that A. 2 is a lady and aged about 55 years, this Court is not inclined to send her to jail at this length of time. Accordingly, the sentence of six months imposed on A. 2 by the Court below is set aside. However, the fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- imposed by the Court below is confirmed. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Criminal Appeal, insofar as A. 2 is concerned, is allowed in part modifying the impugned order to the extent indicated above. The Criminal appeal insofar as A. 1 is concerned is dismissed confirming the sentence of fine of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the Court below.