ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Calendar Case No.453 of 2000 on the file of the judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jogipet. 2. The petitioners herein are A-1 to A-6 and the respondent herein is the complainant in the said C.C.No.453 of 2000. Hence, they will hereinafter be referred in this order as A-1 to A-6 and the complainant, for the sake of convenience. 3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows: The complainant-Assistant Director of Agriculture, Medak filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate against A-1 to A-6 alleging that A-1 is the Farmer Service Cooperative Society, Kothapally in Medak District, A-2 is the managing Director of the said Society, A-3 is the Firm-United Agro Chemicals Cubical No.2, Hyderabad from whom the said Society purchased the fertilizers, A-4 is the partner of A-3-firm, A-5 is the Firm-Sylvan Farm Chemicals who manufactured the fertilizers and supplied to A-3-firm. A-6 is the Managing Director of A-5-firm. 4. On 24-07-1998 the Fertiliser Inspector-cum-Agriculture Officer, Pappanapet visited the business premises of A-1-firm and took sample of zinc sulphate (zn 21%) in the presence of one Vishwanadham and sent the same to Fertiliser Testing Laboratory, Warangal, dt.24-07-1998 in Form No.'K' for analysis and the said laboratory sent its report dated 02-09-1998 stating that the sample is not according to specifications. The Fertiliser Inspector communicated the analysis report to A-1 and seized the available stock of 31 bags of Zinc Sulphate on 11-09-1998 and deposited the same before the District Collector (Civil Supplies) under Clause 28(3) of Fertiliser (Control) Order Act, 1985 under the provisions of Secs. 6-A, 6-8, 6-C, 6-D and 6-E of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is further alleged in the complaint that the accused were selling sub-standard Zinc Sulphate (Zn 21%) and cheating the farmers and thus A-1 to A-6 have contravened the Clause 19(a) of Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985. 5. On the said complaint, the learned Magistrate took the case on file and issued process to A-1 to A-6. Aggrieved by the same, A-1 to A-6 had approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.3977 of 2001 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. 5. On the said complaint, the learned Magistrate took the case on file and issued process to A-1 to A-6. Aggrieved by the same, A-1 to A-6 had approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.3977 of 2001 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. This Court by its order dated 15-02-2002 allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.453 of 2000 with the following observations: "It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the maximum punishment provided under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act is one year, whereas the charge sheet was filed two years after the date of offence. Hence, the complaint filed is barred by limitation. It is also contended that the procedure adopted while taking the samples was not in accordance with the prescribed rules, which caused prejudice to the petitioners. This Court accepts both the contentions of the petitioners and quashed C.C.No.453 of 2000 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jogipet. The petition is allowed." 6. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred an appeal before the Apex Court in Cr.A.No.887 of 2004 contending that the High Court has fallen into grave error by holding that the maximum punishment for an offence relatable to Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act (for short 'the Act') is one year, but in fact it is seven years and therefore on that score alone the High Court's order is liable to be set aside. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents therein viz. the petitioners herein submitted before the Apex Court that the offence with which the accused could be charged even if the accusations in the complaint are accepted in toto relates to Section 7(1)(a)(i) of the Act and not under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) as contended by the State and that in the operative portion of the order of the High Court it was wrongly typed as Section 7(1)(a)(ii) in stead of Section 1(1)(a)(i) and that the entire arguments before the High Court was only in respect of in respect of Section 7(1)(a)(i) and hence the order of the High Court that the proceedings are barred by limitation needs no interference. 8. 8. Considering the contentions raised on behalf of both sides, the Apex Court after extracting the provisions contained in Section 7(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act observed as follows: "It cannot be disputed and is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent that the maximum sentence for an offence relatable to Section 7(1)(a)(ii) is not one year. That being so, that High Court's order necessarily has to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the arguments before the High Court revolved around Section 7(1)(a)(i) of the Act, and a fresh petition shall be filed. If it is filed, it goes without saying, the same shall dealt with disposed of in accordance with law. Appeal is allowed." 9. Thereafter, A-1 to A-6 presented the present fresh petition seeking to quash the proceedings contending as follows: (i) The Fertiliser Inspector visited the business premises of A-1 on 24-07-1998 without entertaining any reasonable belief that a contravention of any of the provisions of the Fertiliser Control Order has been contravened or about to be contravened or attempted to be contravened and further the said Inspector has taken sample of the Zinc Sulphate in violation of the procedure prescribed for taking the sample as contained under Schedule II, Part-A and particularly the said Inspector has not utilized the services of sample probe as defined in Clause 3 of the said Schedule II and also did not confirm to the provisions of Clause 4 as to the manner of drawal of samples from bag and on the contrary samples have been taken on hand by away of hand bulk from heaps and also the sampling instruments seem to have not been utilized and they were not clean and dry and samples have not been packed and sealed in the presence of A-1 and A-2 and they were not kept in clean polythene bottles or in a thick gauged polythene bags. (ii) The analyst report was sent to the accused who disputed the correctness of the report and all of them have sent adequate replies stating that the analysis done by the analyst is imperfect and defective and that as per the report obtained from the manufacturers own laboratory at Trichy and also with another Italab private Limited, Calcutta, there was no deficiency. As per the decision of the High Court in District and Sessions Judge, Guntur v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 (1) ALT (Crl.) 103 (D.B.) (A.P.) = 2000 (1) ALD (Cri.) 268 (A.P.), the accused has got a right to send the sample to the laboratory within a week of their receipt of the report of the analyst. As the said judgment was rendered on 30-06-1999 and the report of the analyst has been served on the accused on 23-10-1998, the accused could not make a request to send the sample for re-analysis. (iii) Though the Fertiliser Inspector took the samples on 24-07-1998, the complaint was filed only on 18-08-2000 alleging that the (?) analysis accused are liable for punishment under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. The Fertiliser Control Order has been issued under Section 3(2) and (h) and (i) of the Act and it is punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(i) of the Act under which the maximum sentence provided is only one year and hence the complaint filed on 18-08-2000 i.e. after lapse of two years is barred by limitation. Further the complainant did not state in his complaint under what provision of the Act, the fertilizer control order has been issued. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nohar Chand Gupta v. State of Punjab, 1984 Criminal Law Journal 886, held that the contraventions under Fertiliser Control Order are covered under Clause (h) or (i) of Sub-section (ii) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, the maximum punishment provided for the contravention of Fertiliser Control Order is one year and therefore the complaint is barred by limitation. (iv) In pursuance of decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in District and Sessions Judge, Guntur and others v. State of A.P. Hyderabad and others, 2000 (1) ALT (Crl.) 103 (O.B.) (A.P.) (Same as Foot No.1), the Government of India through the Ministry of Agriculture has issued a memo dated 28-03-2003 that in case samples drawn and analysed by the State Governments and found non-standard, the aggrieved person may appeal to the notified Appellate Authority within 30 days of the receipt of the analyst report and request for referee analysis and on such application the Appellate Authority shall decide and send one of the two remaining samples for reference analysis to any notified Fertiliser Quality Control Laboratory of another State or any of the Central Government Laboratories. Unfortunately as the report of the analyst was received on 23-10-1998 and the memo was issued later on 28-03-2003, the accused could not avail the benefit of the said memo. Therefore, prejudice has been caused to the accused. (v) The complainant has not followed the procedure prescribed in Schedule II Part-A of Clauses 1 and 2 regarding sampling procedure and further the complainant has not mentioned in the complaint as to the manner in which samples have been drawn from A-1. It is not mentioned in the complaint that the instruments that have been used have been clean and dry as required under Schedule II, Part-A, Clauses (1) (b). It is also not mentioned that Clause 1(e) of Schedule II, Part A has been complied with by the complainant for the reason that it is not mentioned in the complaint that the samples have been kept in a suitable clean, dry, and air tight closed or screwed had polythene bottle of about 400 grams capacity or in a thick gauged polythene bag. In the absence of such recital in the complaint except mentioning that the samples are being collected in the usual procedure does not mean that the complainant has adhered to the mandatory provisions contained in the Schedule II and therefore the complaint deserves to be quashed on this ground as is held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Punjab v. Karan Chand Rajinder Kumar and another, 1992 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 365 and also in the case of Sohan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 372 and also in another judgment rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Subhash Bansal v. State of Punjab, 1991 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 155. 10. On the said grounds the accused prayed for quashing the proceedings in Calendar Case No.453 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jogipet. 11. During the course of hearing of the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the grounds taken in the petition, which are mentioned supra. 10. On the said grounds the accused prayed for quashing the proceedings in Calendar Case No.453 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jogipet. 11. During the course of hearing of the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the grounds taken in the petition, which are mentioned supra. Further the learned counsel invited my attention to a decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Purans Sales Corporation, Jalalabad v. State of Punjab, 1996 (2) EFR 190, wherein it was held that even if the fertilizer was found to be nonstandard, no prosecution could be launched in a complaint field 1½ years after taking of sample. In that case the sample of fertilizer was taken in January, 1990 and the report of analyst was received in February, 1990 but the complaint was filed in June, 1991 i.e. 1½ years after taking of sample. On such facts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the proceedings are liable to be quashed. He also invited my attention to another decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hardev Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1989 (2) RCR 420, wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that when there is no mention in the F.I.R. that sample was taken and sent according to prescribed procedure and manner, the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and that lacuna in prosecution cannot be filled by giving details at a later stage. 12. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the complaint is filed for the offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act for which the sentence prescribed is up to seven years and therefore there is no limitation of one year and hence the complaint in this case is not barred by limitation. He submitted that Section 7(1)(a)(i) of the Act is not applicable to the facts of this case as the violation in this case relate to manufacture, sale and distribution of non-standard fertilizers which is prohibited under Clause 19 r/w Clause 13(1) and (2) of the Fertiliser(Control) Order, 1985. 13. He submitted that Section 7(1)(a)(i) of the Act is not applicable to the facts of this case as the violation in this case relate to manufacture, sale and distribution of non-standard fertilizers which is prohibited under Clause 19 r/w Clause 13(1) and (2) of the Fertiliser(Control) Order, 1985. 13. The points that arise for determination in this petition are: (1) Whether the violations alleged against the accused in this case are punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(i) as contended by the counsel for the petitioners-accused or under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) as contended by the prosecution? (2) Whether the complaint filed in this case is barred by limitation? (3) If not, whether the complaint is liable to be quashed on the ground that the procedure followed in taking sample and sending the same to the analyst is not set out in the complaint? (4) Whether the complaint is liable to be quashed for the reason of filing the complaint after a period of more than two years from the date of taking the sample? (5) Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.453 of 2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jogipet against the petitioners-accused are liable to be quashed? (6) To what relief? Points 1 and 2: 14. As seen from the complaint filed against the petitioners-accused it is clearly alleged as follows: "Therefore, it is submitted that, as seen from the above, it is evident that, the accused were selling sub-standard Zinc Sulphate (Zn 21%) and cheating the farmers, therefore, the accused A-1 to A-6 have contravened the Clause 19(a) of Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985, and are punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955." 15. As seen from the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985, Clause 2 defined the word prescribed standard in relation to various fertilizers included in Column No.1 of Part-A of Schedule-I and the standard is set out in the corresponding entry in Column No.2 subject to the limits of permissible variations as specified in Part-B of that Schedule. As seen from the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985, Clause 2 defined the word prescribed standard in relation to various fertilizers included in Column No.1 of Part-A of Schedule-I and the standard is set out in the corresponding entry in Column No.2 subject to the limits of permissible variations as specified in Part-B of that Schedule. Similarly in relation to mixture of fertilizers the standard is set out in respect of that mixture under sub-clause (1) of Clause 13, subject to the limits of permissible variation as specified in Part-B of Schedule-I. Similarly in relation to mixture of fertilizers that standard is set out in respect of that mixture under sub-clause (2) of Clause 13 by the State Government, subject to limits of permissible variation as specified in Part-B of Schedule-I. Clause 19 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order deals with manufacture, sale and distribution of fertilizers, which is not of prescribed standard. 16. So, in the instant case, the allegation against the accused is that they manufactured sub-standard fertilizers of zinc sulphate (Zn 21%) distributed and kept for sale. As seen from the analysis report the sample of zinc sulphate was found containing only 18.91% as against 21%. As seen from Schedule-I Part-A zinc sulphate shall contain zinc 21% minimum and as per Part-B the variation shall not exceed 0.2%. Therefore, according to the complainant the zinc sulphate collected from the shop of A-1 and A-2 is not of prescribed standard. According to the prosecution A-3 and A-4 are the distributors and A-5 and A-6 are the manufacturers. Therefore, the allegations fall under violation of Clause 19(a) of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985. 17. Nextly it has to be seen whether the said Fertiliser (Control) Order was issued under Section 3(2)(h) or (i) as contended by the counsel for the accused. It is useful to extract Clause (h) and (i) of sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, which reads as follows: (h) for collecting any information or statistics with a view to regulating or prohibiting any of the aforesaid matters; (i) for requiring persons engaged in the production, supply or distribution of, or trade and commerce in, any essential commodity to maintain and produce for inspection such books, accounts and records relating to their business and to furnish such information relating thereto, as may be specified in the order. 18. 18. As seen from the above said clauses (h) and (i) of sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act the order issued providing for collection of any information or statistics with a view to regulate or prohibit the production, supply and distribution therein and requiring the persons engaged in the production, supply or distribution to maintain and produce such books, accounts etc. for inspection, fall under these clauses. Whereas in the instant case, the violation alleged is not in respect of maintenance of accounts or furnishing of statistics etc. but, it is for violation of manufacture, sale and distribution of fertilizers, which is not of prescribed standard. In respect of violation of any order prohibiting for collection of information or statistics or prohibiting for requirement to maintain and produce for inspection of such books, accounts etc. the maximum punishment prescribed is only for one year as per Section 7(1)(i) but not in respect of violation of orders issued for maintenance of quality of fertilizers to be manufactured. By no stretch of any imagination, it can be said that Clause 19(a) of Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 is an order issued under Section 3(2)(h) or (i) of the Essential Commodities Act. In my considered view the order issued under Fertiliser (Control) Order relating to Clause 19(1) is an order falling under any other order for which the punishment is prescribed under Clause 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act. The learned counsel submitted that in the complaint it is not stated under what provision Clause 19(1) of the Fertiliser (Control) Order was issued and therefore it cannot be said that the said order was not issued under Section 3(2)(h) and (i) of the Essential Commodities Act. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the accused because it is clearly mentioned in the complaint that violation falls under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act which indicates any other order. The learned counsel relied on a single Judge decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nohar Chand Gupta's case (2 supra) wherein the learned single Judge held that when the charge sheet makes no reference of any particular clause of Section 3, it cannot be said that the said order was not issued under Section 7(h) or (i) of the Act. In the cited case, the accused engaged in manufacture of fertilizers and the sample of fertilizer was found sub-standard. In that case, the accused was alleged to have contravened the provisions of Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957 punishable under Clause 13, which is triable summarily under Section 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and is punishable with a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. In that case also it was contended on behalf of the State that it is clearly mentioned in the charge sheet that Section 7(1)(a)(ii) is applicable for which punishment prescribed is 7 years. The learned single Judge did not accept the said contention advanced on behalf of the State and held that the Fertiliser (Control) Order was issued under Clauses (h) or (i) of Subsection 2 of Section 3. It is true that this judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court supports that contention of the learned counsel, but, I am unable to agree with the view expressed by the learned single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court for the reasons stated supra. In my considered view by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Clause 19(a) of Fertiliser (Control) Order was issued by the Government under Section 3(2)(h) or (i) of the Essential Commodities Act which deals with maintenance of accounts, production of books for inspection etc. Hence, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel in this regard. It is clearly mentioned in the complaint that the offence alleged is punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act for which the sentence is up to seven years. So, the complaint is well within time and it is not barred by limitation, thus, these points are found against the petitioners. Points 3 and 4: 19. As seen from the complaint, it is simply stated as follows: "On 24-07-1998 Sri J. Ramchander Rao, Agriculture Officer, (Fertiliser Inspector) at Papannapet Mandai, Medak District, has inspected the premises of the Farmers Service Co-operative Society, Kothapally, who deals with the fertilizer business and collected the sample of Zinc Sulphate (zn 21%) as a routine function in the presence of Sri. K.Vishwanadham under acknowledgment, second part of the sample was kept in the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular), Medak, as referred sample and third portion was sent to Fertiliser Testing Laboratory, Warangal vide letter No.Fert.Samples/98/24-07-1998 (Form 'K') for analysis under Clause 28(4)(b) of Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985, fourth test sample was sent to Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad." 20. As seen from the Fertiliser (Control) Order, specific procedure is prescribed in Schedule II, Part-A for drawal of samples of fertilizers. As per Clause 1, Part-A of Schedule II samples shall not be taken at a place exposed to rain/sun, the sampling instruments shall be clean and dry when used, the material being sampled, the sampling instrument and the bags of samples should be free from any adventitious contaminations, to draw a representative sample, the contents of each bag selected for sampling should be mixed as thoroughly as possible by suitable means, the sample should be kept in suitable, clean dry and air tight glass or screwed had polythene bottle of about 400 gm capacity or in a thick gauged polythene bag and this should be put in a cloth bag which may be sealed with the inspector's seal after putting inside the detailed description as specified in Form 'J', identifiable details may also be put on the cloth bag like sample number, code number or any other details which enable its identification, each sample bag should be sealed air tight after filling and marked with details of sample, type and brand or fertilizer, name of dealer manufacturer and the name of inspector who has collected sample. Clause 2 of Part-A, Schedule II prescribes the scale of sampling from bagged material. A detailed procedure has been prescribed. Similarly under Clause 3 of Part-A, Schedule II Prescribes sampling probe that an appropriate sampling instrument to be used by the Inspectors for collection of a representative sample is called sampling probe. The probe may comprise of a slotted single tube with solid cone tip made of stainless steel or brass. The length of the probe may be approximately 60 to 65 cms and the diameter of the tube may be approximately 1.5 cm and the slot width may be 1.2 to 1.3 cms. Thus, a specific procedure has been prescribed under Schedule II of Fertiliser (Control) Order for collection of samples by the Inspectors. The length of the probe may be approximately 60 to 65 cms and the diameter of the tube may be approximately 1.5 cm and the slot width may be 1.2 to 1.3 cms. Thus, a specific procedure has been prescribed under Schedule II of Fertiliser (Control) Order for collection of samples by the Inspectors. Therefore, it is the duty of the complainant to make mention of the procedure adopted for collection of samples in the complaint. At least the complaint must contain the recitals to the effect that the sample was collected duly following the procedure prescribed in Schedule II of the Fertiliser (Control) Order. Even such recitals are also not found in the complaint filed in this case. In the absence of such recitals, I am unable to hold that there is prima facie material furnished to the Court to show that the sample was collected in the manner prescribed under Part-A, Schedule II of Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985. Such acts on the part of the Fertiliser Inspector cannot be presumed in order to take cognizance of the offence for which minimum punishment is prescribed. In a similar case in Subhash bansal's case (6 supra) the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that if there is no mention made in the FIR regarding procedure adopted for taking the sample, the FIR is liable to be quashed. In the said case also the sample of fertilizer was found to be non-standard amounting to violation of Section 19(1)(a) of the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985. In the said case also the sample of fertilizer was found to be non-standard amounting to violation of Section 19(1)(a) of the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985. The learned Judge at paragraph 4 of the said decision observed that "it has been repeatedly been held by this Court in Charan Dass and others v. State of Punjab 1987 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 285; Sohan Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1988 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 372; Gian Chand Luthra v. State of Punjab, 1988 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 481 and Hardev Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Reports 420 that infirmities in collections of the sample in violation of the statutory requirements envisaged in Schedule II of the Order vitiates the proceedings and is a justifiable ground for quashing the same." The learned Judge further observed that no plausible explanation has been put forth on behalf of the State as to why the procedure adopted for taking the sample, or the manner in which the sample was actually taken does not find specific mention in the impugned First Information Report and the said lacuna in the prosecution case cannot be filled by giving details at a later stage. It was a case of taking sample of 16% Single Super Phosphate Fertilisers and it was found only 13.83% and it was alleged in the complaint that the accused had cheated the farmers by selling non-standard Single Super Phosphate-Fertiliser and contravened the provision contained in Section 19(1)(a) of the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985. In that complaint also the procedure for taking sample was not pleaded. The facts of the cited case are similar to the facts of this case. Therefore, the said decision also supports my view that the complaint should contain the procedure followed in taking the sample or at least there should be an averment in the complaint to the effect that the sample was collected in the manner prescribed under Part-A, Schedule II of the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985. In the absence of such recitals, I am of the considered view that the proceedings initiated on such complaint are liable to be quashed. 21. Further, in the instant case, there was lot of delay in filing the complaint. The sample was taken on 24-07-1998 and the analysis report is dated 15-09-1998. Show cause notice was issued on 23-10-1998. The complaint was filed on 18-08-2000. 21. Further, in the instant case, there was lot of delay in filing the complaint. The sample was taken on 24-07-1998 and the analysis report is dated 15-09-1998. Show cause notice was issued on 23-10-1998. The complaint was filed on 18-08-2000. But, there is no explanation for such abnormal delay in filing the complaint. In Purans Sales Corporation, Jalalabad's case (7 supra) the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that the sample of fertilizer was taken in January, 1990 and the report of the analyst was received in February, 1990 and the complaint was filed in June, 1991 i.e. 1½ years after taking of sample. In the instant case, the complaint is lodged more than 2 years after taking the samples. Therefore, on this ground also the proceedings in this case are also liable to be quashed. Point No.5: 22. In view of my findings on points 3 and 4, the proceedings in this case are liable to be quashed. Thus, this point is held accordingly. Point No.6: 23. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in Calendar Case No.453 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jogipet against the petitioners are hereby quashed.