JUDGMENT Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral):- Om Parkash appellant, a Shopkeeper of Jalalabad was prosecuted in a case FIR No.65 dated 17.11.1994 registered at Police Station City Jalalabad under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as, ‘the Act’). The Court of Special Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 22.3.2002 held him guilty of offence under Section 7 of the Act and vide a separate order of even date, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.11.1994, Gurvinder Singh, the then Agriculture Development Officer, Jalalabad PW5 alongwith Mohan Lal, Agriculture Sub Inspector and Ramesh Kumar, Beldar had gone for routine checking. He reached on the shop of the petitioner named as M/s Raja Fertilizer, Jalalabad. The accused was found present in the shop and was unloading the fertilizer from the Rehra. The witness demanded purchase bill of the fertilizer but the accused could not produce the same. Therefore, the inspection of the shop was carried and on checking 39 bags of DAP fertilizer, 27 bags of aluminum Chloride Suraj Khad and 11 bags of Sher Chhap Super Phosphate were recovered. They were not entered in the register. The samples were drawn and the same were sent to Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Faridkot. It is the case of the prosecution that the report was received from the Laboratory and the fertilizer drawn from Sher Chhap Super Phosphate was found to be sub-standard. 3. Prosecution examined ASI Jaswant Singh as PW1 who had stated that he had taken into possession photo copies of the licence Exs.P1 and P2 vide memo Ex.P3. He stated that he had also taken into possession photo copy of the affidavit of Om Parkash vide memo Ex.P4. 4. Resham Singh, A.D.O. PW2 stated that Kamleshwar Peon had deposited with him six samples of the fertilizer and that he had handed over three samples to Balbir singh, Agriculture Sub Inspector for depositing the same in the Laboratory at Faridkot and after depositing the same the receipt obtained was handed over to him. The remaining three samples remained in the custody of Chief Agriculture Officer. 5. The remaining three samples remained in the custody of Chief Agriculture Officer. 5. Balbir Singh, Agriculture Sub Inspector PW4 had stated that Resham Singh had handed over the samples to him which he had deposited in the Laboratory. 6. Chanan Ram PW6 stated that he had gone to the shop of the petitioner to purchase the fertilizer. 7. PW7 ASI Gurdial Singh had carried out the investigation and submitted the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 8. Thereafter the prosecution closed its evidence. 9. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all incriminating circumstances were put to him. He denied all incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. In support of his defence, the appellant stated that he is a victim at the hands of Surinder Pal Singh, Fertilizer Inspector. 10. In support of his defence, the appellant examined DW1 Surinder Kumar who stated that Surinder Pal Singh, A.D.O. used to harass the dealers and compel them to give him illegal gratification and the dealers had observed a strike and held demonstrations against Surinder Pal Singh. 11. Mr.M.L.Saini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that it is incumbent upon the prosecution to put the sample in a tin container. In the present case, it has come in the evidence of Gurvinder Singh PW5 that the sample was drawn in a polythene bag and later on the same was put in a cloth bag. Counsel states that this amounts to violation of Rules prescribed under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and in this regard he placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Hari Krishan v. State of Punjab, [2007(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1436] : 2007(3) RCC 510. 12. In the present case, Gurvinder Singh PW5 in his examination-in-chief has stated as under:- “....Fertilizer was mixed on the paper and was divided into three equal parts. Each part was put into a polhythene bags and seizure memo was prepared and each bag of polythene alongwith seizure memo was further put into a cloth bag and both bags were sealed with seal FIAGR JBD. Similarly samples were drawn and were sealed from the aluminum Chloride, Suraj Khad and Sher Shap Single Supper Phosphate and these were also sealed with same seal ‘FIAGRJBD’. Remaining fertilizer bags were also sealed with the same seal including the bags from which samples were drawn.” 13. Similarly samples were drawn and were sealed from the aluminum Chloride, Suraj Khad and Sher Shap Single Supper Phosphate and these were also sealed with same seal ‘FIAGRJBD’. Remaining fertilizer bags were also sealed with the same seal including the bags from which samples were drawn.” 13. In Hari Krishan’s case (supra) a Single Bench of this Court relying upon various judgments of this Court had come to a conclusion that such a deviation from the standard procedure prescribed cannot be ignored and the same amounts to illegality and the benefit of such an illegality was given to the accused and acquittal was recorded. It will be apposite here to reproduce relevant portion of the judgment in Hari Krishan’s case (supra):- “12......More so, rather than putting the samples in air tight glass container, it was put in polythene bags. No plausible explanation for deviating from the standard procedure as prescribed in 1985 Order has been made by the prosecution. Therefore, the Trial Court fell in error in ignoring the aforesaid illegalities committed by the Fertilizer Inspector. A similar view was taken in the following judgments: 1. 1988(2) RCR (Crl.) 481 (Gian Chand Luthra vs. State of Punjab). 2. 1992(3) RCR (Crl.) 365 (State of Punjab vs. M/s Karam Chand Rajinder Kumar and others). 3. 2003(4) RCR (Crl.) 639 (State of Punjab vs. Ashok Kumar and others. 4. 2003(2) RCR (Crl.) 609 (State of Punjab vs. Sohan Lal). 5. 1989(2) RCR (Crl.) 711 (Amrit Lal v. State of Punjab). The present case is also on the similar footings. ....” 14. Counsel for the State has not advanced any argument to convince this Court to take a different view than the one formulated in Hari Krishan’s case (supra). Furthermore Hari Krishan’s case (supra) rely upon various judgments of this Court, which is sufficient to infer a consistent view of this Court. 15. Thus, relying upon the observations made in Hari Krishan’s case (supra), the benefit of doubt is ought to be granted to the appellant. Hence, the present appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. ---------0.J.S.K.0-----------