- (1.) As, identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide all the indicated criminal revision petitions, by this common order, to avoid the repetition.
(2.) The epitome of the facts and material, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petitions and emanating from the record is that, initially petitioner-State of Haryana(through Quality Control Inspector) has filed the complaint for prosecution of the respondents-accused for the contravention of Clause 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Relevant Order") punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
(3.) The Special Judge, Jagadhri, dismissed the complaint by virtue of impugned order dated 20.12.1996, which is as under:- "This complaint has been filed against the respondents for violation of the clause of 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. The relevant clause has been struck down as un-constitutional by our own Hon'ble High Court in case "Tarsem Singh Vs. Union of India, 1996 3 RCR(Civ) 633". So the complaint is dismissed and the respondents are discharged." Sequelly, the similar impugned orders were passed by the Special Judge in the connected complaints, subject matter of other revision petitions.;