Ujagar Singh, J.:— Crl. Misc. No. 3657-M/88 and Cr. Misc. No. 5045/88 are being disposed of by this order as they arise out of the same matter.
2. The petitioner vide this petition has challeged the proceedings in FIR No. 219 dated 13.6.82 under Sections 7/13 of the Essential Commodities Act read with clause 13(i)(a)(vi) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 registered at Police Station Abohar as also the order framing charge against the petitioner by the Special Judge, Ferozepore vide his order dated 6.6.1988 The petitioner has taken various grounds with regard to his working only to book orders and the take commission. He urges that on the booking of the order, the fertilizer is supplied by the manufacturer directly to the dealer concerned and the fertilizer remains never under the control or possession of the petitioner.
3. It is averred that the sample was taken and put in polythene bags. The sample of fertilizer was thereafter sent for test to the analyst and it was found that the standard laid down was contravened. The rules required that sample should be more than 0.5 kg. and this weight has to be mentioned, but, in this case no such weight was noted. The facts noted above are not contradicted by any reply which was to be filed on behalf of the State. The counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of Pritpal Singh, J. (as he than was) in Crl. Misc. No. 5000-M/1986 decided on January 15, 1987 laying down that under clause (4)(2)(ii) of the Schedule II of the Fertilizer Control Order 1957, sample is required to be placed in suitable clean, dry and airtight glass or other suitable container and stored in shade. As it was not done in that case, it was held that the mandatory provisions of law have been contravened and therefore, the FIR and the proceedings in pursuance thereof were quashed. A similar view was taken by me in amended Cr. Misc. No. 3238-M/86 and Cr. Misc. No. 2464-M/87 decided on 17.1.1988 reported in 1988 Vol. 1 Recent Criminal Reports 372 as also in Cr. Misc. No. 6004-M/86 decided on the same day reported in 1988 Vol. 1 Recent Criminal Reports 374 titled Sohan Singh v. State of Punjab and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab respectively.
4. This case is not distinguishable from the said cases and therefore, both these petitions are accepted. The FIR No. 219 dated 13.6.1982 as also the proceedings in pursuance thereof including the order flaming the charge are quashed.