ORDER Tej Shankar, J.These three Revision Petitions arise out of three different cases against the present petitioner.As they raise common questions of law, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.The facts on the basis of which the petitioner has been prosecuted Under Section 3 r/w Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and violation of Section 19 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, in the aforesaid three different cases are also more or less similar.It is alleged that Raghuveer Saran Gupta non-petitioner No. 2 was proprietor of M/s Raghuveer Saran Arun Kumar, a dealer in fertilizers at Dinara (326/96) Satish Kumar Jain, non-petitioner No. 2 was proprietor of M/s Vivek Traders, a dealer of fertilizers at Pohri (327/96) Hukum Chand Nagaria.non-petitioner No. 2 was proprietor of M/s Jwala Prasad Hukum Chand, a dealer in fertilizers at Sirsaud (328/%).There was a stock of Vishwas Brand Single Super Phosphate (In short SSP) with the said proprietors and sample was taken on different dates in the aforesaid three cases and it was sent to the fertilizer analyst for examination.A report dated 4-9-1995 was received and according to the report sample was found Sub-standard to the extent mentioned in the report.In all the three cases it was mentioned in the report that the fertilizer was purchased from the firms mentioned therein.The allegation made against the petitioner was that he was the manufacturer of Vishwas Brand Single Super Phosphate (SSP) which was a company known as Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. Jhansi (U. P.).The petitioner claimed that there was, however, no mention of the procedure adopted by the complainant in taking sample.There was no allegation about the business relationship between the said firms and the petitioner.The said firms are not agent of the petitioner.The shops from which the sample was received did not belong to Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. Jhansi (U.P.) Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. had no sale depot in M.P. or at Shivpuri.There is no allegation in the F. I. R. that the sample was taken from the bags which were owned by M/s Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. even if it was found that the fertilizer in question was the same which was manufactured by M/s Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd., Jhansi (U.P.).There was no allegation to support the allegation that sample was taken from the bags which were in the ownership of the M/s Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. There is also nothing to show that the said firms had obtained any warranty from M/s Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. or that the goods were kept intact in the same condition in which they were purchased.Procedure for taking sample had been laid down in Schedule-II of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and the provisions are mandatory.Nothing has been shown that the procedure was actually followed.Unless it is specifically alleged that the petitioner was the owner he could not be proceeded with under the Essential Commodities Act. There could not be a joint trial under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act of the alleged manufacturer or vendor or distributor.They can only be tried if allegations are made that they have connecting links between them so as to constitute the same transaction.Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length that the revision petition lies.In support of his contentions he placed reliance upon certain authorities.The Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, accepted the final report and set the appellants at liberty.The complainant preferred a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal against the order of the Judicial Magistrate which was dismissed.The informant thereafter filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate against the 11 accused persons including the appellants.After examining the complaint and going through the record learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint as he was satisfied that no case was made out against the appellants.Again a revision was preferred and it was allowed and the case was remanded for further enquiry.The learned Judicial Magistrate thereafter issued summons to the appellants straightway.The appellants then moved before High Court Under Section 482 and Section 397 of the 1973 Code for quashing the order of the Judicial Magistrate.The statements had been published in newspapers.The Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra was examined as a witness in the Court of Sessions to prove the sanction order.An application was moved by the appellant before learned Sessions Judge for rejecting the complaint on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.The appellant raised three contentions before the learned Sessions Judge regarding the legality of the trial and all the contentions were rejected by learned Sessions Judge.He framed a charge against the appellant Under Section 500 of Penal Code.A revision petition was filed before the High Court challenging the order of the Sessions Judge.A preliminary objection was raised about the maintainability of the revision petition which was upheld.Aggrieved party approached the Apex Court.The revision application challenging an order framing charge was maintainable.

Cited provisions: Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code