HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6178 of 2009 DATED:20.08.2009 Between: Rastriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, Visakhapatnam .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by Assistant Director of Agriculture (R ) Kallur, Srikakulam District, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6178 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent. The petitioner is facing prosecution in C.C.No.20 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pathapatnam, Srikakulam District along with two others for allegedly being the manufacturer of the fertilizer in question, which is found to be misbranded on analysis. The second accused in the case was alleged to be the wholesale dealer, who supplied the fertilizer to the first accused, who is the retailer from whose shop the sample was lifted. However, at the instance of the second accused, this Court quashed the proceedings against him in Crl.P.No.1740 of 2004 on 22.03.2006. This Court found that a copy of the analyst report was not furnished to the second accused and that reanalysis of the sample was also refused in spite of the request of the first accused and on such finding of fact, this Court positively considered the request of the second accused to end the criminal proceedings. The said orders have admittedly become final. The petitioner claims herein that firstly it is not the manufacturer of the fertilizer in question and it only imported the same from abroad and secondly the denial of the opportunity of reanalysis to the first and second accused should enure for the benefit of the third accused also. While an importer of a fertilizer does not appear to be absolved from liability in respect of any imported fertilizer under the relevant provisions of the Statute, the non-service of the analyst report on the second accused and the refusal of the request of the first accused for reanalysis of the sample obviously deprived the first and second accused of the valuable opportunity to establish that the finding of misbranding of the fertilizer in the first analysis was not correct. The denial of this opportunity provided by the Statute obviously prejudices the defence of all the three accused and denial of the statutory right which led to the quashing of the proceedings against the second accused should also enable the third accused to have the benefit of the violation of the mandatory statutory right. It is not the case of the prosecution that after import by the third accused, the fertilizer was in any way tampered with by the third accused and if it were merely transported in a sealed state in the same condition in which it was received, the third accused cannot be fastened with any criminal liability, under the circumstances, in the light of the orders of this Court in Crl.P.No.1740 of 2004. Therefore, the further proceedings in C.C.No.20 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pathapatnam, Srikakulam District against the petitioner are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 20th August 2009 KH