IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3697 of 2008 MADHUSUDAN PRASAD, Son of Sri Mewaram Jee, resident of Tekari Road,P.S. Kotwarli , Town and District-Gaya ------------------------- Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR -------------- Opp.Party ----------- For the petitioner : M/S N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate,and K.C.K.Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. ___________ O R D E R 2 03-02-2009 The sole F.I.R. named accused of Gaya ( Kotwali ) P.S. Case no.40 of 1996, a dealer in fertilizer and holding a licence for carrying out business in fertilizer under the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 16.5.2007 passed therein by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, whereby he has rejected the petitioner’s petition for his discharge. It appears that on 20.2.1996 an inspection was made by the Block Agriculture Officer of the business premises of the petitioner and in course thereof books of account available therein were seized and the present case was instituted on the allegation that certain technical discrepancies were found in the maintenance of stock register, Cash memos, sale register and submission of returns as also arrival reports. Assailing the impugned order, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the relevant day, a Block Development Officer was posted at Gaya and in view of clauses 27 and 28 of the Fertilizer Control Order read with Notification No.5-F- - 2 - 33/5513 dated 16.4.1986 assigning powers of Inspector , the Block Agriculture Officer had no jurisdiction to exercise the powers of an Inspector under the Fertilizer Control Order. Clause 27 of the Fertilizer Control Order deals with the appointment of Inspectors of fertilizers for the purpose of the Order and the Notification dated 16.4.1986 issued thereunder details the persons who can be empowered to exercise the powers of Inspectors. At serial no.10 thereof figures the Block Agriculture Officer but his powers are restricted for use only in such areas where no Block Development Officer is posted. It would thus be clear that the Block Agriculture Officer can exercise the power of an Inspector within the concerned Block only when no Block Development Officer is posted therein. In that view of the matter, in the circumstances of a Block Development Officer already being posted in the Block on the relevant day, the entire inspection and seizure by the Block Agriculture Officer was illegal and ab initio void. Consequently the entire proceeding arising therefrom was illegal and unwarranted and could not be sustained in law. It was next submitted that under the Fertilizer Control Order there is no requirement of maintenance of sale register either by the wholesale dealer or a retail dealer and as such they are not required to maintain any sale register and non-maintenance thereof would not constitute an offence. Similarly, the maintenance of a common cash memo for wholesale dealer and retail dealer was not an offence of violation of the Fertilizer Control Order. Then again the allegation of - 3 - not mentioning D.O. number and R.R. number of the consignment in the stock register is not an offence in the eye of law since the prescribed stock register does not contain such columns and there is no requirement thereof as would be apparent from a perusal of Form No.’N’ prescribed under clause 35. The learned A.P.P. was not in a position to rebut the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and rightly so, because the submissions appear to be correct. It was finally submitted that the impugned order suffers from the vice of a non-speaking order as no reasons have been assigned for the rejection of the petition. Merely stating that the petitioner has violated various rules and that he should raise all these points in course of the trial is not sufficient. The learned A.P.P. is again unable to refute the submission. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner from the discussions made above carry sufficient force. Accordingly, the application succeeds and the impugned order as also the criminal proceeding is hereby quashed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) NKS/-