IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Thursday, the 30th day of June, 2011 Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Crl.P.No. 5113 of 2011 Between: Wahed Hussain …Petitioner and S.K. Munna and anaother …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P.No. 5113 of 2011 O r d e r: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused in Cr.No.37 of 2011 of P.S., Utkoor, Mahabubnagar District. The allegation is that he has stocked about ten bags of fertilizer for the purpose of doing business in violation of the Law and Control Orders governing the fertilizer in question. The offences mentioned are those punishable under sections 120-B and 420 IPC. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the above sections of law are not applicable and in fact the petitioner is in possession of the fertilizer in question for his own use as he is having five acres of agricultural land. The petitioner’s counsel produced Xerox copy of receipt dated:12.6.2011 said to have been issued by a concern called Maruthi Traders of Makthal. 3. It may be noted that the petitioner’s counsel is not able to show as to what was the quantity which a person can possess for his own personal use under the relevant provisions of the Law. His only contention is that the sections of law noted in the FIR are not applicable and he is in possession of fertilizer for his own use and not for any business. The plea of the petitioner regarding the purpose for which he is in possession of the fertilizer in question is a question of fact to be decided on evidence or by the investigating agency in the course of investigation. Regarding mentioning of a wrong provision in the FIR that is not a ground by itself to quash the FIR when the allegations otherwise show the offence under different provisions of Law. The matter is still at the stage of investigation and hence in the above circumstances this is not a fit case for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. 4. So far as the arrest of the petitioner is concerned, he is stated to be aged 62 years and in view of this the police may keep in view Sec. 41 of the Cr.P.C. in taking a decision about his arrest. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. June 30, 2011. *BVS Note: Furnish CC tomorrow. (BO) BVS.