- (1.)The first and second accused in S.T.C. (E.C) No. 15/1983 on the file of the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer for Essential Commodities Act Cases, Pudukkottai are the appellants. First accused is the company, while the second accused is the managing partner of the said Company. They along with A3 to A5 were prosecuted by the respondent for contravening the provisions of Clause 13(1) (aa) of the Fertilizer Control Order 1957 read with S. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. The trial court acquitted A3 to A5, but found Al and A2 guilty of the charge Al being the Company a sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000 was imposed. A2 was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2.000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
(2.)The facts which led to the prosecution can be summarised as follows:
The first accused Amaravathy Fertilizer Company represented by its managing partner A2 is manufacturing Elephant Brand Fertilizer with a proper certificate of registration issued by the Director of Agriculture, Madras. A3 to A5 are the partners of the above company. In terms of the certificate of registration, the company should manufacture and sell fertilizer in accordance with the provisions of the Fertilizer Control Order 1957. The respondent who has been examined as P.W.1 inspected Amaravathy Fertilizer Company at 3:00 P.M. on 21-10-1982 and took samples of the fertilizer known as standard mixture No. 18 which had been manufactured on that day and duly entered at page 75 of the standard mixture stock book. The sample was taken for analysis to find out plant nutrients contained therein. It is the case of P.W.1 that the sample was taken as per quartering method, divided into three portions and sealed. All formalities enjoined by law were observed and one portion was sent to the laboratory at Tiruchirapalli for analysis on 23-10-1982. The result of the analysis was reached on 9-2-1983 from the Assistant Agricultural Chemist, Coimbatore mentioning that the sample did not conform to the prescribed standard and, as such, the seizure was a non-standard fertilizer. The report of the Chemical analyst has been marked as Ex.P5.

(3.)To substantiate the prosecution case, the respondent apart from examining himself as P.W.1, examined P. Ws.2 and 3 who are Assistant Agricultural Chemist and his subordinate who analysed the sample respectively. The prosecution also marked Ex.P1 to P13, The defence examined one witness who is an Office boy in the first accused company, but did not choose to file any documents. M.O.1 the sample of fertilizer given to the accused by the complainant, was produced in court by the accused and marked by the respondent while he was cross examined.