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
SKS,J
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.
SKS,J
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
SKS,J
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
Manu/PH/1406/2024
1996 Law Suit (P&H) 614
SKS,J
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
