Telangana High Court
Rashtriya Chemical And Fertilizers ... vs The State Of Telangana on 6 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9215 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in S.T.C.No.21 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad, for the offences punishable under clauses 19(a)(c)(iii) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 read with Sections 3 and 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 i.e., Assistant Director of Agriculture(Regular) Nizamabad Urban, inspected the premises of the petitioner and has drawn three samples of complex fertilizer manufactured by the petitioner company from the premises of the rake point of the petitioner company and also sent one sample to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Fertilizer Coding Centre, SAMETI, Hyderabad, for the purpose of analysis and found that the said 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9215 of 2024 sample is not according to the standard specifications. It is also stated that on request of the petitioner, the sample was also sent for reanalysis to the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad, who turn declared it as non-standard and as such, the petitioner was served with detention notice to prevent the disposal or movement of fertilizer as the petitioner selling the non-standard fertilizers. Hence, based on the complaint of respondent No.2, a case was registered vide S.T.C.No.21 of 2021 before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Nizamabad.
3. Heard Sri. Ravishankar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not responsible for day to day affairs of the company. He further submitted that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted without any documentary evidence to show that he is responsible for the adulteration of the fertilizers. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. 3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.9215 of 2024
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner stating that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and the merits or otherwise of the same has to be gone into by the trial Court. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. In view of the rival submissions made by both the parties, this Court has perused the material available on record. It is noteworthy that though respondent No.2 alleged that the petitioner, being the Director of the Rashtriya Chemical and Fertilizers Limited, is responsible for day to day affairs of the said Fertilizer Company, he failed to file any documentary evidence to prove the same. Petitioner herein shown as representative of the Company. Cause title itself shows that company as the accused/petitioner is the representative of the company as authorized person, therefore on that ground it cannot be quashed. Further the petitioner relied on the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in TATA Chemicals 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9215 of 2024 limited vs. State of Panjab 1, wherein exonerated the liability of marketing company stating they are not liable for the offence as the samples were drawn from sealed packing and observed that the liability if any would lie with manufacturing company. In the present case company is manufacturing company not marketing agency. Further petitioner relied on the observation of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Tarsem Singh vs. Union of India 2, wherein Section 19 of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 is struck down as unconstitutional, where as the validity was upheld by the Full Bench of same High Court in L.P.A.No.273 of 1997. Therefore, above judgment is no way helpful to the petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that at this stage, it cannot be said that whether the petitioner is an authorized person of the said Fertilizer Company or not for the alleged offences without filing any documentary evidence and as such, it requires trial to elicit the true facts of the case. Hence, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the 1 Manu/PH/1406/2024 2 1996 Law Suit (P&H) 614 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9215 of 2024 petitioner and the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:06.11.2024 GV