IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6724 OF 2008 Between: M/s. Sri Sneha Enterprises, Seed Dealer, Jaggampeta, Rep. by its proprietor Sri Palakurthi Suryanarayana ..... Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through the Asst. Director of Agriculture (Regular) Alamuru, East Gadavari District Rep. by Public Prosecutor, A.P. High Court, Hyderabad. .....Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER: Seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 721 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, launched against the petitioner – Accused No.4 and others, for offences punishable under Secs. 19(1) of the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985 and Secs. 7(i)(a) and 9(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, this Criminal Petition is filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Alamuru, is the complainant in this case. It is the case of the complainant that on 21.1.2003, he surprised the shop of A-1 and A-2 and has drawn four samples of single superphosphate 16% weighing 400 grams each, available in the shop, in the presence of two mediators, duly following relevant norms and taking necessary precautions. Thereafter one sample was sent to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, FCO Laboratory, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad for analysis by Registered Post, the second sample along with Forms Nos. K & J was sent to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Alamuru as referee sample for safe custody, the third sample along with Form Nos. K & J was served on the Accused No.2 under acknowledgment and the fourth was sent to the Assistant Director of Agriculture (FCO), Office of The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture (AP) Hyderabad. On the analysis of the sample, the Assistant Director of Agriculture, F.C.O. Laboratory, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, opined that the sample was not according to the specifications due to deviation in the percentage of nutrients required. While so, on 3.4.2003, the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Alamuru issued show cause notice to the Accused No.1 in the matter. The complainant handed over the analytical report to the accused No.2 under acknowledgement and seized the stock register, bill books and credit bills of M/s. Pasumarthi Venkata Raju, Yeditha. The Government issued G.O. Rt. No.556 Agril. & Coop. (FR-1) Department dated 16.5.1995, according sanction for the prosecution of the Accused Nos.1, 3 and 5, inasmuch as the single superphosphate 16% certified as substandard is concerned. It is alleged that the Accused No.4 is the dealer representing the Accused No.3 M/s. Sri Sheha Enterprises, Main Road Jaggampeta, for the distribution of the substandard single superphosphate 16%. Learned counsel for the accused No. 4 vehemently contends that even supposing that the allegations are true on their face value without admitting them, there is nothing on record to say that the Accused No.4 represented the Accused No.3 firm for the sale of the substandard single superphosphate 16% and, therefore, subjecting the Accused No.4 to undergo the agony of trial is sheer abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the proceedings against the Accused No.4 are liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the Accused No.4 mediated between A-3 and A-5 and at the instance of Accused No.4, the fertilizer manufacturer directly delivered the goods to A-5, and therefore, the complicity of Accused No.4 in the sale of the substandard fertilizer, cannot be ruled out. The complicity of the accused No.4, as per the charge sheet is only that he represents A-3 for the distribution of the substandard 16% single superphosphate. No material is filed along with the charge sheet to conclude prima facie that the allegation that the Accused No.4 was appointed as their dealer and he sold the stock supplied by the manufacturer/supplier is true. Even supposing that the allegations as to the substandard nature of the fertilizer are taken to be true on its face value, there is nothing on record to connect the Accused No.4 with the charge and, therefore, the prosecution of the Accused No.4 for the charge, in the case is an abuse of process. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in CC No. 721 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, insofar as the petitioner/A-4 is concerned. __________________________ Justice G.Krishna Mohan Reddy October 21, 2011 MAS.