Rajan Gupta, J. (oral)
This is an appeal preferred by State of Punjab against judgment dated 24th December, 1998, passed by Special Judge, Ludhiana whereby accused/respondents were acquitted of offence under Sections 19 (1) (a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Briefly, factual background of the case is that Bhagwan Singh, Fertilizer Inspector, Machhiwara, checked the premises of M/s Piara Singh Avtar Singh on 19 October, 1993. He was accompanied by Amarjit Singh, Agriculture Officer, Machhiwara. The Inspector took 400 gms of the fertilizer as sample out of the fertilizer being sold with the brand name ‘Basant Super Single Super Phosphate 16% (g)’ manufactured by M/s Shivalik Fertilizers Ltd. (respondent No. 2 herein) and sealed the same in polythene bag. A seizure memo was drawn up in Form ‘J’ in the presence of Salesman Avtar Singh. The sample was duly signed by witnesses. Thereafter, the analysis report (AR No. 1279 dated 11 November, 1993) was received from the laboratory. According to the report, the samples were not found in accordance with the specifications and thus it was found that accused had violated the provisions of Section 19 (1) (a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985.
The accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the stage when case was fixed for prosecution evidence, it was brought to the notice of the trial court that Fertilizer (Control) Order had been quashed by the High Court in CWP No. 5643 of 1995 titled as ‘Tarsem Singh v. Union of India’.
In view of the judgment delivered by the High Court, the Special Judge acquitted the accused of the charge levelled against them. The trial court proceeded on the basis that Fertilizer (Control) Order was no longer in existence and thus, the accused deserved to be acquitted.
Learned counsel appearing for the State has argued that approach of the trial court in relying the judgment in CWP No. 5643 of 1995, was misplaced as the same had been set-aside by Division Bench of this court in LPA No. 1039 of 1996, decided on 29 July, 1997. She submits that since the judgment had been delivered by the Division Bench more than a year prior to the decision of the instant case by the Special Judge, Ludhiana, the accused could not have been acquitted on the basis of the order passed in CWP No. 5643 of 1995 whereby Fertilizer (Control) Order was set-aside.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has argued that in view of the fact that the case pertains to the year 1993, no useful purpose will be served by subjecting the accused to trial all over again after a lapse of 17 years. He is, however, not in a position to dispute the fact that the Division Bench had restored the Fertilizer (Control) Order vide its judgment dated 29 July, 1997 in LPA No. No. 1039 of 1996 and Special Judge could not have acquitted the accused on that basis alone.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is evident that a Single Bench of this court in a judgment delivered in CWP No. 5643 of 1995, had set-aside the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. The trial court while delivering the impugned judgment proceeded on the basis that Fertilizer (Control) Order was no longer in existence. However, in the Latest Patent Appeal No. 1039, preferred by the State of Punjab, titled Director Agriculture Punjab v. Gurmukh Mal and others, LPA No. 1039 of 1996, a division bench of this court set aside the order passed by the Single Bench thereby restoring the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. This judgment was delivered on 29 July, 1997 while the instant case was decided by the Special Judge, Ludhiana on 24 December, 1998. It is inexplicable as to how the accused could be acquitted on the ground that Fertilizer (Control) Order was no longer in existence when in fact the same had already been restored.
In view of the above, the impugned judgment dated 24 December, 1998, delivered by the Special Judge, Ludhiana, is set-aside and matter is remitted back to the same court for decision afresh in accordance with law.
At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in view of the fact that offence pertains to the year 1993, a direction be issued to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously. This prayer is not opposed by the learned State counsel.
It is directed that the trial court shall endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months.
Disposed of.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
March 10, 2010
To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes/No