Ravinder Kumar vs State of Punjab

Dr. (Mrs.) Sarojnei Saksena, J.

Petitioner is seeking quashment of FIR No. 61 dated 9.4.1988 Police Station Dirba District Sangrur registered vide D.D.R. No. 18 dated 9.4.1988.

Brief facts of the case are that Khetla Cooperative Agricultural Service Society wherein petitionerRavinder Kumar is working as a CashiercumSalesman was inspected by Shri Bhag Singh, Agricultural Inspector. On 11.7.1985 he took sample of D.A.P. fertilizer from machine stitched bags bearing marking of IFFCO, the manufacturer. The sample was drawn in polythene papers. It was sent to Fertilizer Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana. As per the Analyst report, the sample was not according to specifications and was found substandard. Thus, complaint, Annexure P1, was filed against the petitioner under Clause 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizers Control JUDGMENT 1985 read with Section 12A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Petitioner is seeking quashment of this FIR alleging that this D.A.P. fertilizer was not kept in the premises of the Society for sale. It was meant for personal use of the members of the Society. The second objection is that the sample was taken in polythene bag which is improper way of taking the sample and is in violation of mandatory provisions of law. The sample was taken from machine stitched bags, which had warranty label and trade mark of the manufacturer; therefore, there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner had any knowledge of the fertilizer being substandard. It is also averred that the sample was taken on 11.7.1985, it was analysed on 17.7.1985 and the FIR was lodged on 9.4.1988. On account of this delay also, the FIR is liable to be quashed.

All these averments are denied by the respondent in its reply. The respondent has specifically pleaded that the petitionersociety is a dealer in fertilizers and Dealer''s registration No. 53/179 dated 9.9.1981 which is renewed upto 31.3.1990 is granted to the said society. The said society is dealing in D.A.P. fertilizers. It gives this fertilizer to its members either on credit or on marginal profit basis; therefore, it amounts to sale. The sample was drawn in thick gauged polythene bag, which is in accordance with Schedule II provision of A(1)(e) of the said Control JUDGMENTIt is also denied that since the sample was drawn from machine stitched bags, the petitioner is not liable if it is found to be substandard. The respondent also denied that on account of delayed filing of the FIR, it is liable to be quashed.

So far as first objection is concerned, the Society is dealing in fertilizers. It is giving DAP fertilizers to its members either on credit or on profit basis. Even otherwise under Section 19(1)(a) of the said JUDGMENT no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf : manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute any fertilizer which is not of prescribed standard. Even if the society is distributing this D.A.P. fertilizers to its members, it cannot be said that it is for its personal use because it falls within Clause 19(1)(a) of the said JUDGMENT and the Society is liable to distribute fertilizers to its members, which is of prescribed standard. Even otherwise, the respondent has clearly averred that the registration certificate has already been issued on 9.9.1981 to the said society which is renewed upto March, 1990.

Schedule IIA(1)(e) provides that the sample can be taken in a thick gauged polythene bag. Respondent''s contention is that the sample was taken in a thick guaged polythene bag; therefore, prima facie it cannot be held that the sampling was not done in accordance with law. On account of delay also, the FIR cannot be quashed. If the petitioner had no knowledge that the fertilizer was substandard or he could not have known it that it is substandard or society was keeping it fit for sale/distribution to its members in the same condition in which it was received from the manufacturer, all these facts are not admitted by the respondent, they are disputed questions of facts which can be enquired into only when during the investigation, evidence is collected and when it is adduced in the Court. The same pleas were raised in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1987, State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh and another, which were accepted by the High Court and the F.I.R. was quashed, but the High Court''s order was set aside by the Apex Court vide its judgment dated 6.2.1987 holding that when FIR of cognizable offence is registered, the police has to conduct the investigation and at that stage, FIR should not be quashed thereby restraining the police authorities from performing the duties enjoined upon them by law. The registration of the FIR and holding of investigation thereon does not amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

Thus, finding the petition meritless, it is hereby dismissed.