Criminal Revision No.398 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.398 of 1996 Date of decision: February 25, 2008 State of Punjab … Petitioner Versus Jagdish Lal … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) On 7th May, 1994, Special Judge Ferozepur discharged Jagdish Lal, who was being prosecuted in case FIR No. 122 dated 22.11.1993 registered at Police Station Guruharsahai under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Learned Special Judge, Ferozepur, while discharging the respondent had recorded the following finding: “3. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the Learned State counsel and the counsel appearing for the accused and I have gone through the relevant provisions of the Fertilize control order. In order to better appreciate the observations, I would like to reproduce the definition of ‘Dealer’ as mentioned in the Fertilizer control order : - “Dealer” means a person carrying on the business of selling fertilizer, whether whole/sale or retail, and includes a manufacturer and a pool handling agency carrying on such business and the agents of such person. Manufacturer or pool handling agency.” Rule 28 of the fertilizer control order Criminal Revision No.398 of 1996 2 provides the procedure how the sample is to be drawn from the fertilizer bags by the fertilizer Inspector. Now the question arising for determination is whether the accused has kept the fertilizer bags in his house for sale to farmers or hot. It is mentioned in the Statement of Gurvinder Singh, fertilizer Inspector, Sampuran Singh, Gurmit Singh, Jagjit Singh, all officials of the Agriculture Department that the accused told the raiding party that the fertilizer bags did not belong to him and his customer had kept the bags in his house and had assured to carry the fertilizer bags after arranging the conveyance. The prosecution did not provide any opportunity to the accused to produce the farmer in order to show tat he had kept the fertilizer bags in the house of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused had been running the business of Commission Agents in food grains and the fertilizer bags were not recovered from the shop of the accused and were recovered from the house of the accused. In case the accused had stored the fertilizer bags. He would have kept the same at his shop and not at his house. The prosecution has not recorded the statement of any farmer to whom the accused has sold the fertilizer in the past nor the accused was caught while selling fertilizer to the farmers. The accused has explained his position to the raiding party that the fertilizer did not belong to him, rather the fertilizer bats belonged to his customers, who had kept the bags in his house and had assured to carry the fertilizer bags after arranging the conveyance. According to the definition contained in the fertilizer control order, mere possession of Sub standard fertilizer does not make out any offence. The prosecution has not collected any evidence that the accused has stored the fertilizer bags in his house for sale to farmers. I have already observed that mere possession of even sub standard fertilizer bags does not make out any offence contravening the provisions of the fertilizer control order punishable under Section 7 of the Essential commodities Act. Even the Fertilizer Inspector has not drawn the sample according to the procedure contained in rule 28 of the Criminal Revision No.398 of 1996 3 Fertilizer control order. The fertilizer Inspector did not prepare the sample details in duplicate in form J and did not hand over one copy of the same to the accused when the sample was drawn from the bags found present in the house of the accused. I have already observed that mere possession of fertilizer bags does not make out any offence and the fertilizer Inspector has also not followed the procedure as contained in rule 28 of the fertilizer control order, 1985. The accused has not contravened any provision of the fertilizer control order,. 1985 and as such the accused did not commit any offence by keeping the fertilizer in his house, which were not meant for sale.” The learned counsel appearing for the State has been unable to point out any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Special Judge, Ferozepur. The Special Judge, from the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that since the fertilizer bag was stored at the house, therefore, respondent cannot be termed to be the dealer as there is no evidence with the prosecution that he has sold fertilizer to any customer. Even otherwise, the present FIR was registered in 1993. A period of 15 years is going to elapse. The right of speedy trial is vested with the accused. If the order is set aside after 15 years and accused is put to trial, same will cause him great hardship. Therefore, present revision petition is dismissed as no interference is called for. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge February 25, 2008. rps