P.K.LOHRA, J. - (1.) Petitioner has laid this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint No. 840/2001 under Section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clause 19 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and all other consequential proceedings.
(2.) The facts, in brief, giving rise to this petition are that a complaint, attributing aforesaid offence, is filed against the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh. Learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner and summoned him. It is pleaded in the petition that the Fertilizer Inspector has not followed the procedure for drawal of samples of fertilizers and therefore, the complaint cannot be entertained. It is further pleaded that in want of compliance of the mandatory provisions, continuance of proceeding in the complaint would be a sheer abuse of the process of the Court. For canvassing the legal position on the issue, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 589/2013 (M/s. Chittari Agricare Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajsthan) decided on 10.12.2014. In that matter, the proceedings regarding procedure for drawal of samples of fertilizers was examined threadbare and it was observed that mere mentioning in the complaint that the mandatory procedure, as provided in Schedule II, has been complied with, would not suffice when it is nowhere mentioned in detail step by step. The Court held:- "11. From a bare look at the contents of the complaint and the seizure memo, it is evident that the Inspector whilst drawing the samples made a bald mention therein that the samples were drawn as per law. 12. When the law prescribes that a particular act has to be done in a particular manner, it goes as a corollary that the mode of performing such act should be reflected - in the corresponding documents so as to instill confidence and sanctity in the proceedings and for maintaining fairness. This Court in the case of Chandra Prakash (supra) was dealing with an identical situation. In the aforesaid case, this Court observed that a mere mention in the complaint and the inspection memo that the mandatory procedure as provided in the Schedule was followed would not suffice. It has to be mentioned and elaborated in the seizure memo that the detailed procedure of drawl of samples prescribed in the Schedule was followed. The precise steps taken by the Inspector to draw the samples have to be reproduced in the inspection note so as to reflect subjectively that the procedure as duly followed. When the issue regarding the mandatory provisions being followed is examined by the court, the prosecution would only have the inspection memo and the complaint to fall upon in order to establish compliance. In order to satisfy the court that the due procedure was followed, the procedure obviously has to be reflected in these documents."
(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has not disputed this legal position.;