HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6792 of 2007 Between: M/s.Zuari Industries Limited, Managing Director. … Petitioner/Accused No.3 And The State of A.P., rep. By its public Prosecutor … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6792 OF 2007 ORDER:- Petitioner, who is a manufacturer and arrayed as accused No.3 in C.C.No.337 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore for the contravention of clause 19-(a) of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings initiated against him for the alleged offence. The entire complaint allegations goes to show that the Mandal Agricultural Officer has drawn the samples of fertilizers from out of the stock manufactured by the petitioner from the premises of the 1st accused company on 30.12.2003 and were sent for chemical analysis. On receipt of the report from the laboratory on 09.01.2004, the same was served on the dealer-1st accused. As per the investigation report the fertilizers were found non-standard and accordingly filed the above complaint, which was taken on file by the Magistrate and issued process. The entire complaint allegations do not indicate furnishing of a sample to the manufacturer or the report of the Chemical Analysis. A Division Bench of this Court in District and Sessions Judge, Guntur v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1], while dealing with the procedure to be followed by the authorities when they seize the fertilizers, mandated drawing of three samples, giving one sample to the accused, so as to get the same tested by an independent analyst, and supplying copy thereof to the Distributor also. The said principle has been affirmed by this Court in T.Deveswar Reddy v. Assistant Director of Agriculture[2] categorically holding that the procedure envisaged by this Court in District and Sessions Judge’s case (1 supra), will be prospective in operation namely from the date of judgment i.e., 30.06.1999. Having regard to the fact that the procedure envisaged to be followed by furnishing a sample to the dealer and also forwarding the analysis report as directed by this Court, has not been followed by the prosecuting agency, the proceedings cannot be continued and they are accordingly quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 12th August 2010 lmv [1] 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 268 [2] 2007(1) ALD (Crl.) 589 (AP)