1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 725/2006 ( Sharad Kumar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of Order : 05/12/2006 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, public prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT:- By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of criminal Case No. 212/04 (Complaint Case No.56/04) for the offence under Section 19 (1) of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 and Section 7 (1) & (2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the material available on record including the complaint filed by State through its Assistant Director, Agriculture, (Extension), Kapasan. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence connecting the petitioner with the commission of offence. It is further contended that there is no 2 provision in the Fertiliser (Control) Order analogous to the provisions existing in similarly statutes like Insecticides Act, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, for sample to be analyzed by the Central Laboratory and therefore, in absence of provision, the entire proceeding is bad in law. It appears from the record that on 16.6.2003, the complainant inspected the firm of the non-petitioner No.4 and took the sample of single super phosphate (powder), fertiliser which was manufactured by the non-petitioner No.2. On sample being sent to the Deputy Director Agriculture (Fertiliser Quality Control), Fertiliser Analysis Laboratory, Udaipur, for analysis, it was found to be of sub-standard which is evident from the analyst report dated 14.7.2003. Learned counsel has raised certain points with regard to the sealing of the sample. From the analysis report dated 14.7.2003, it appears that the sample received by the State Fertiliser Quality Control Laboratory, Udaipur was sealed sample and seal thereon remained intact. Even otherwise, this cannot be gone into at the initial stage of the proceeding. Such question can only be gone into in the trial of the case. So far as there being no provision for sending the sample of Fertiliser for the second test by Central Laboratory, it 3 would not vitiate the complaint. The various questions raised in the petition are question of facts and evidence is yet to be adduced and therefore, cannot be gone into at the initial stage of the proceeding without affording an opportunity to the complainant to adduce the evidence. In the circumstances, therefore, no case for quashing the proceeding is made out. The criminal misc. petition has no force and it is therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp