[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajneesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5237
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 19TH OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38683 of 2023
RAJNEESH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ayushman Choudhary, public prosecutor for respondent/State.
.....................................................................................................................
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 is filed assailing the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by I Additional
Sessions Judge Ratlam in criminal revision no. 36/2021 affirming the
order dated 24.2.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Ratlam in
RCT No. 35/2020 whereby charges have been framed against the
petitioner for the offence punishable under Clause 7 of Fertiliser
(Control) Order, 1985 read with Section 3 and 7 of Essential
Commodities Act.
2. The exposition of facts, giving rise to present petition, is as under:
a. Shri Brajmohan Solanki, Fertilizer Inspector and Senior
Development Officer, Block Ratlam submitted a written complaint
dated 17.11.2019 to the SHO of the Police Station Namli inter-alia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5237
stating that an inspection team conducted inspection of Namli Agro
Agency at Old Namli Bus Stand. On enquiry from the proprietor
Rajnish son of Radheshyam Parihar it was revealed that fertilizer
was stored at two places: (i) at tin-shed near Clinic of Dr. S.N.
Gupta on main road Namli, (ii) at the shop of Namli Agro Agency
near Union Bank main road Namli. The proprietor of Namli Agro
Agency had fertilizer license registration No. 553 which permits
storage of fertilizers at Namli Agro Agency Old Bus Stand Main
Road, Namli. Therefore, Rajnish Parihar has violated the condition
of fertilizer license by storing the fertilizer at two places. On such
allegations the Police Station Namli registered FIR for offence
punishable under Section 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act
read with Clause 7 of Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985. The
relevant documents were seized. The statement of witnesses were
recorded. During investigation, the license holder Rajnish Parihar
informed that both the places where the fertilizer was stored
belongs to his father. The final report was submitted on completion
of investigation.
b. The Judicial Magistrate First Class Ratlam vide order dated
24.2.2021 framed the charge against petitioner Rajneesh for
offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of Essential
Commodities Act for violation of Clause 7 of the Fertiliser
(Control) Order, 1985. The petitioner/accused Rajneesh filed
criminal revision before the Court of Sessions. Learned I
Additional Sessions Judge Ratlam in Criminal Revision No.
36/2021 affirmed the impugned order framing charge against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5237
petitioner and rejected the revision. The present petition is filed
feeling aggrieved by order framing of charge dated 24.2.2021 and
affirming order dated 19.07.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No.
36/2021.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the facts and
grounds mentioned in the petition submitted that Clause 7 of Fertilizer
(Control) Order, 1985 does not provide for intimation regarding storage
of fertilizer. Further Clause 1(o) defines "offer for sale" as exposing the
fertilizer for sale indicating the price by publication of price list. There is
no allegation that the petitioner was offering to sell the fertilizer from two
places. Learned counsel further referring to the letter dated 15.10.2019
given to the Deputy Director of Agriculture contended that the concerned
authority was duly intimated that due to repair of godown, the fertilizer
was temporarily kept near Clinic of Dr. S.N. Gupta and the Union Bank.
Therefore, there is no violation of fertilizer license making out the offence
punishable under Section 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act. The FIR
and further prosecution against the petitioner be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
petition and submits that Clause 6 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985
provides that no person shall sell, offer for sale or carry on the business of
selling of fertilizer at any place as wholesale dealer or retail dealer except
under and in accordance with clause 8. The petitioner has violated the
Rule by storing the fertilizer at the place other than mentioned in the
fertilizer license issued to him. However, at the instruction of
complainant Braj Mohan, Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Block
Ratlam, he fairly submits that the letter dated 15.10.2019 regarding
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5237
temporary shifting of fertilizer was received by him on 16.10.2019.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The allegation against the petitioner relates to violation of Clause 6
of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985, which provides as under:
"No person shall sell, offer for sale or carry on the business of
selling of fertilizer at any place as wholesale dealer or retail dealer
except under and in accordance with clause 8."
Clause 7 of Order provides for application for intimation or
registration as under:-
1. Every person intending to sell or offer for sale or carrying
on the business of selling of fertilizer as Industrial Dealer shall
obtain a certificate of registration from the controller by making an
application in Form A together with the fee prescribed under clause
36 and a Certificate of source in Form O.
2. Every person including a manufacturer, an importer, a pool
handling agency, wholesaler and a retail dealer intending to sell or
offer for sale or carrying on the business of selling of fertilizer shall
make a Memorandum of Intimation to the Notified Authority, in
Form A 1 duly filled in, in duplicate, together with the fee prescribed
under clause 36 and certificate of source in Form O.
7. The petitioner needs to provide the details of the storage of
fertilizer in Form A. However, there is no allegation that the
petitioner/accused has displayed or published any price list and offered
the fertilizer for sale at the tin shed near Dr. S.N. Gupta Clinic or at the
godown near Union Bank, Main Road, Namli where the fertilizer was
allegedly stored. The complainant was duly informed by the petitioner
regarding temporary shifting of fertilizer for repairs at his godown. This
letter was received by the complainant on 16.10.2019. But he did not
reveal this fact at the time of inspection or during investigation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5237
Therefore, violation of Clause 6 or 7 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order,
1985 was not prima-facie made out.
8. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the prosecution of petitioner for offence punishable under 3 and 7 of
Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 7 of the Fertiliser (Control)
Order, 1985 would be an abuse of process of law. The learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class Ratlam apparently committed error in framing of
charge under Section 3 read with Section 7 of Essential Commodities act
and learned Sessions Judge committed error in affirming the order dated
24.07.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Ratlam. The
inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
invoked to prevent the abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of
justice.
9. Consequently, the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by I Additional
Sessions Judge Ratlam in criminal revision no. 36/2021 affirming the
order dated 24.2.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Namli in
RCT No. 35/2020 is quashed. The petitioner stands discharged.
10. Petition is accordingly allowed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Police Station and
the trial Court for information and compliance.
C.C as per rules.
( SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
BDJ
