The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the Criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 in STC. No. 4O ot 2021 , on the file of Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sangareddy for the offence punishable U/s. Contravention of Clause 19 (b) of FCO (Fertilizer Control OrdeQ 1985, R/w. Sec. 7 (1 ) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. l.A. NO: 1OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including personal appearance of the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 in STC No. 40 of 2021 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sangareddy pending disposal of the Quash Proceedings. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and of Smt S. Madhavi, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL P ETITIO N No.395 OF 2022 ORDER This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner_accused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in S.T.C.No.40 of 2021 pending on the file of learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sanga Reddy, registered for the offences under Clause 19(b) of Fertilizer Controt Order (FCO), 1985 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essentiat Commodities Act, 19S5.

02. Heard Sri palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.S.lrladhavi, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for the State. perused the record.

03. The case of the prosecution is that the Fertilizer lnspector while discharging his regurar duties visited the premises of the M/s. Sri Nataraj Rythu Seva Kendram belonging to the petitioner-accused No.1 . He conducted verification of records pertaining to the accused No.1,s fertilizer shop. Thereafter, he suspected the fertilizer shop stocks and drawn three samples. Each test sample was sealed by the Fertilizer Inspector. The .l"r sample was given to the petitioner-accused No.1 along with I l Form-J as well as panchanama and acknowledgment. The 2nd sample was sent to Fertilizer Coding Centre at Hyderabad along with Form-K. The 3'd sample was retained with the Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), Dubbak. Thereafter, Fertilizer lnspector received Form L from Assistant Drector of Agriculture FCIO Laboratory, Hyderabad vide Lr.No.FCO/TECH t271t12t2o19, dated 09.12.20'19 and it was found that the fertilizer stocks were Non Standard and not according to the specifications as per Schedule lA l(dx4) of FCO, 1985. Thereafter, the Fertilizer lnspector proceeded to the petitioner-accused No.1 and served the Fertilizer Analysis Report. On physical verification, there is no stock available in the shop. lt is informed by the petitioner-accused No.1 that the stock was already sold out. Hence, the petitioner-accused No.1 committed the offences under Clause 19(b) of Fertilizer Control Order (FCO), 1985 read with Section 7(1 )(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-accused No.'l is nothing to do with the alleged offences. The petitioner-accused No.1 is a Dealer and Stockiest of various brands of fertilizer stocks and he procured the said stocks directly J from the manufactures and he never stored the sub-standard fertilizers and he is conducting the business after obtaining proper license. He is no way concern with the manufacturing or preparation of the fertilizer stocks. As per Section 30 of the FCO, 1985, the samples have to be sent to analysis within stipulated period of seven days, but the samples were sent to the Laboratory after eight days from the date of collection of samples. There is violation of Section 30 of the FCO, 1985. The alleged samples were collected by the Fertilizer lnspector from the stitched bags. Therefore, the petitioner-accused No.1 is not responsible for the alleged non standard fertilizer stocks, as he was not the manufacturer of the said stocks The complaint was lodged on 13 02.2021 i.e. after 1 /. year of obtaining the samples. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No. 1 .

05. On the other hand, learned Assistant public Prosecutor contended that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the matter has to be decided, after conducting trial by the concerned Court. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the Criminal petition. 4

06. On a perusal of the charge sheet, the inspection was done on 26.11.2019 and the samples were collected on the same day. The said samples were sent to the Laboratory for analysis on 04.12.2O19. As per Section 30 of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, the drawn samples shall be sent to Laboratory for analysis within stipulated period of seven days, the Section 30 of FCO, 1985 read as follows: "30. Time limit for analysis, and communication of result (1) Where sample of a fertilizer has been drawn, the same shall be dispatched along with a memorandum in Form K and in case of Organic fertilizers and Biofertilisers in Form Kl to the laboratory for analysis within a period of seven days from the date of lts drawal. (2) The laboratory shall analyse the sample and forward the analysis report in Form L and in case of Organic tertilizer and Biofertiliser in Form Ll within [30 days] from the date of receipt of the sample in the laboratory to the authority specified in the said memorandum. (3) The authority to whom the analysis repo( is sent under sub-clause (2) shall communicate the result of the analysis to the dealer/manufacturer/lmporter/pool handling agency from whom the sample was drawn within \'- / f [15 days] from the date of receipt of the anatysis report of the laboratory.,, 01 . Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in Farmers Seryrce Co-operative Society, Kothapatty, Pappannapet Mandal, Medak District and Others y. Stafe Government of A.p.1 , wherein it was held that: "20. Further, in the instant case, there was lot of delay in filing the complaint. The sample was taken on 24.O7.1ggg and the analysis report is dated 25.0g.1g9g Show cause notice was issued on 23.10.199g The complaint was filed on 18.08.2000 But, there is no explanation for such abnormal delay in filing the complaint. ln purans Sales Corporation, Jalalabad,s case (9 Supra) the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that the sample of fertilizer was taken in January, 19g0 and the report of the analyst was received in February, 1990 and the complaint was filed in June, 1991 i.e., 1 /z years after taking of sample. ln 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.,, 'z0o61r; elo 1crt.) eoo lapy - I { 6

08. ln the present case on hand, the samples were sent after 8 days from collection. There is delay of one day in sending the drawn samples to the Laboratory for analysis. Further, it is to be noted that the report of the laboratory was dated 19'122019, the complaint was lodged on 13.02.2021 , that means there is delay of more than 1 year delay in lodging the complaint. There ls no explanation putforth by the complainant for the said abnormal delay. Therefore, there is unreasonable and unexplained delay on the part of the complainant in filing the complaint.

09. lt is an admitted fact that as on the date of inspection, the stock was in stitched bags and the alleged samples were drawn from the said stitched bags. There is no averment to show that the petitioner-accused No.1 was responsible for the substandard quality of the fertilizer stock. Hence, the petitioner-accused No.1, who is a dealer and stockist of fertilizers of various brands and doing business after obtaining proper license, cannot be made liable for the substandard quality of the fertilizer stock. Therefore, continuing the criminal -T 7 proceedings against the petitioner_accused No.1 would amount to abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner_accused No.1 in S.T.C.No.40 of 2021 pending on the file of learned Additionat Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sanga Reddy, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if a SD'. P //TRUE COPY'/ ny, shall stand '$PSISI"-ET,EFRRI / SECTION OFFICER closed To LlHi':L:'x]di1l:',i'.:xllit$;PJ"[1ifl 1 Two CCs to Publtc rr at HYderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD coPtes '.:,'"Ti:l'"""' i I BJLB/gh Y I IS €t s L)( \itF 2[25 rj? t \ I {- c HIGH COURT DATED:03/04/202s ORDER CRLP.No.39S ol 2022 CRIMINL PETITION IS ALLOWED