Gujarat High Court
Altret Biotech Limited Through Raj Sam ... vs State Of Gujarat on 30 June, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2205/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO.2205 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Sd/-
=========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
=========================================
ALTRET BIOTECH LIMITED THROUGH RAJ SAM LOKHANDWALA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=========================================
Appearance :
MS. KRUTI M SHAH for the Applicants.
MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondents.
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 30/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of respondents. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today itself.
2. By way of this petition, the applicants have prayed to quash Criminal Case No.84979 of 2021 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Taluka Surat City, District Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 7(1)(a)(ii) and 10 of Essential Commodities Act.
Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 00:36:57 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2205/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined
3. The facts of the case are that applicant No.1 is a Company and applicant No.2 is the Authorized Officer of the applicant No.1 Company. On 15.7.2020, Agriculture Officer, Choryasi, Surat had drawn samples of fertilizer i.e. mix micro nutrient Gujarat Grade-4 from Altret Biotech, Surat during inspection and three samples were taken. One sample was given to accused No.2 to Raj Sam Lokhandwala. The second sample was sent to notified fertilizer testing laboratory and third sample was kept in the office.
3.1 Upon analysis of the sample by the Assistant Director of Agriculture dated 24.7.2020, it was found that the sample is not in accordance with the specification and the same fails in ferrous, manganese, zinc, nutrient content and the said sample was declared as non standard.
3.2 Accordingly, Agriculture Officer had issued show-cause notice to the accused No.1 on 13.8.2020 for which reply was given by accused No.1 on 9.9.2020 and he requested for retesting of sample. Thereafter, upon an approval given by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar on 14.12.2020 of retesting, the third sample kept in office was sent to State Ferti8lizer quality control laboratory, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan and in the said analysis also, the sample failed in the same manner.
3.3 Therefore, second show-cause notice was given which was also replied by the applicant and thereafter, the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Surat sent a proposal to the Director of Agriculture, Gandhinagar for taking necessary action and to file complaint as according to him, there was a breach of Part 19(b) of Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 00:36:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2205/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and the accused have committed offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act.
3.4 Pursuant to the said proposal, an order was passed on 3.6.2021 whereby the Agriculture Director, Gandhinagar passed an order granting permission to institute court case upon production of the documents by Agriculture Officer, Choryasi, District Surat and thereafter, Criminal Case No.84979 of 2021 was filed by Fertilizer Inspector, Agriculture Officer, Surat City before the Court of learned JMFC, Surat.
3.5 It is the aforesaid proceedings which is under challenge by way of the present petition.
4. Ms. Kruti M. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the applicant, at the outset, submitted that the issue under consideration is the authority of the Officer who has filed the complaint as according to her, the powers were not delegated to the concerned Officer by the Director of Agriculture. Therefore, when the person to whom the power is delegated to file the complaint has not filed the complaint, the complaint would fail and the same cannot be stated to be a complaint in the eyes of law. Therefore, the entire proceedings based on a complaint filed by the Officer who was not authorized by the Authority would not amount to complaint and, therefore, the said proceedings would vitiate and, therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
4.1 Ms. Shah pointed out from the record that (at page 49) the Agriculture Director, Gandhinagar vide order dated 3.6.2021 Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 00:36:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2205/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined authorized the Agriculture Officer, Choryasi to institute the proceedings and to look after the proceedings and to appear in the proceedings. However, the complaint was filed by Agriculture Officer, Surat city who was not authorized to institute the complaint and, therefore, the entire proceedings would be vitiated as the same are instituted by the Officer without any authority and, therefore, the complaint is required to be quashed and set aside.
4.2 Ms. Shah drew attention of the Court that the aforesaid order can be said to be a specific and special order delegating the powers to Agriculture Officer, Gandhinagar on account of a Notification dated 12.1.2018, the Agriculture Officer, Choryasi whose name figures at Serial No.185 is empowered to file a complaint in respect of whole Choryasi taluka, Surat District and the applicant Company functions at Sachin which would come within the jurisdiction of Choryasi Taluka and, therefore only the Agriculture Officer, Choryasi was competent to file the complaint in view of the above Notification published by the Agriculture, Farmers Welfare and Co-operation Department of the State of Gujarat and despite that the complaint was filed by the Agriculture Officer, Surat City and, therefore, the complaint is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
5. Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that after the Notification dated 12.1.2018, the territorial limit on account of Sachin where the Company functions was included in the Surat city limit and, therefore, the same came into the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Officer, Surat City with effect from 18.6.2020 by way of a Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 00:36:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2205/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Notification published by the Urban Housing and Urban Development Department and, therefore, as per the territorial jurisdiction, only the Officer who was functioning as Agriculture Officer, Surat city was competent to file the complaint and, therefore, the complaint was filed Agriculture Officer, Surat instead of Agriculture Officer, Choryasi who was authorized by office order dated 3.6.2021 and merely because the person is delegated power has not filed the complaint and another person has filed the complaint, the same would not invalidate the complaint and, therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, I found that the Notification dated 12.1.2018 specifically states that the Agriculture Officer, Choryasi was authorized to file a complaint in respect of whole Choryasi Taluka. At the relevant point of time, Sachin where the applicant No.1 Company functions was within the territorial jurisdiction of Choryasi Taluka. However, vide Notification issued by the Urban Housing and Urban Development Department, Sachin was later on included in the Surat city w.e.f. 18.6.2020 i.e. after publication of the Notification dated 12.1.2018 and, therefore, the Agriculture Officer, Surat City was competent to file the complaint in respect of the offence committed in view of Notification dated 12.1.2018.
7. That being the factual position, despite the aforesaid clear-cut Notification which empowers various Officers functioning in various parts of the State Government who were authorized to file complaint, a special order was passed upon a recommendation made by the concerned Officer and the same was passed on Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 00:36:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2205/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined 3.6.2021 i.e. after Sachin was included in the Surat City and for Sachin area, Agriculture Officer, Surat City was competent to file the complaint. Despite that, by way of the order dated 3.6.2021, Agriculture Officer, Choryasi was authorized to file the complaint and to remain present in the Court proceedings which would indicate that despite earlier Notification dated 12.1.2018 which was of general nature and which specifies the area of operation and authorizes Officers in respect of territorial jurisdiction of various parts of the State Government, special powers were delegated to the Agriculture Officer of Choryasi Taluka though Sachin by that time was included in the city limits of Surat and, therefore, the Agriculture Officer, Surat was competent to file the complaint.
8. Not only that, after the aforesaid Notification was passed on 3.6.2021, complaint as can be seen from the record was filed on 2.9.2021 i.e. almost after three months after the powers were delegated to the Agriculture Officer, Choryasi and, therefore, the submission of learned APP that at the time when the Notification dated 12.1.2018 was published, at that time Sachin was included in the Choryasi Taluka which was later on included in the territorial limits of Surat City and, therefore, the complaint was filed by the Agriculture Officer, Surat City as he was competent cannot be accepted as Sachin was included in the city limits in the year 2020 and thereafter, by way of special order dated 3.6.2021, powers were delegated to the Agriculture Officer, Choryasi and despite that, without there being any alteration in the order or without there being any further order to delegate the powers to Agriculture Officer, Surat City, the complaint was filed by Agriculture Officer, Surat City which cannot be said to be valid compliant in view of absence of delegation of powers in favour of Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 00:36:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2205/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025 undefined Agriculture Officer, Surat City. Therefore, the impugned complaint is required to be quashed and set aside on this technical ground.
9. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Criminal Case No.84979 of 2021 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Surat is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the State to file fresh complaint if permissible under law and in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the matter and the petition is allowed only on the aforesaid technical ground. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) SAVARIYA Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 00:36:57 IST 2025