II AJFCM, ELURU 1 CC No.431/2021
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR
DIVISION)-CUM-II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS, ELURU.
CALENDAR CASE No.431/2021
1Date of Offence 23.01.2019 2Date of Complaint01.07.2021 3Date of Apprehension of Accused- 4Date of Commencement of Trial12.06.2024 5Date of Closure of Trial 24.04.2025 6Date of Judgment 14.07.2025 7ComplainantGovernment of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By The Assistant Director of Agriculture ( Regular ), Akiveedu, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 8Name of the Accused 1. M/s.Vikas Agro Products, 8-150, Main Road, Chebrolu- 522212, Guntur District A.P.
2. Mr.G.Anjaneyulu, S/o. Gandhi, Age 42 years, Designated as Manager, D.No.150, Main Road, Chebrolu- 522212, Guntur District.
3. Viswa Vijetha Agros India Private Limited, Sangadigunta, Guntur-522003.
4. M/s. Sri Sai Ganesh Fertilizers & Pesticides, D.No.4-98, Bondada Village, Kalla Mandal, W.G.Dist., A.P
5. Sri Kandula Venakta Nageswara Rao, S/o. Krishna Murthy, Age 50 years, Bondada Village, Kalla Mandal, W.G.Dist., 9OffenceUnder section 7(1)(a), (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for Contravention of Rule 19(a) r/w. Part (a) (I) of Fertilizers Control Order, 2003. 10 Plea of AccusedPleaded Not guilty.
11 FindingFound not guilty.
12 ResultIn the result, the accused Nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravention of Rule 19(a) read with Part (a) (I) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255(1)
II AJFCM, ELURU 2 CC No.431/2021
Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 5 shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated under Section 437(A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuables if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The accused Nos.1 to 5 had not undergone any remand period. 13 Explanation for delayThere is no un-avoidable delay.
Sd/-B.Rachana
II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-
CUM-II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I
CLASS, ELURU.
Copy submitted to :
The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.
II AJFCM, ELURU 3 CC No.431/2021
IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR
DIVISION)-CUM-II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS, ELURU.
Present: Ms. B.Rachana,
II Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru
Monday, the 14th day of July, 2025.
CALENDAR CASE No.431 of 2021
FORM – A
Complainant Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By The Assistant Director of Agriculture ( Regular ), Akiveedu, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. Represented by Learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor
Accused1. M/s.Vikas Agro Products, 8-150, Main Road, Chebrolu- 522212, Guntur District A.P.
2. Mr.G.Anjaneyulu, S/o. Gandhi, Age 42 years, Designated as Manager, D.No.150, Main Road, Chebrolu-522212, Guntur District.
3. Viswa Vijetha Agros India Private Limited, Sangadigunta, Guntur-522003.
4. M/s. Sri Sai Ganesh Fertilizers & Pesticides, D.No.4-98, Bondada Village, Kalla Mandal, W.G.Dist., A.P
5. Sri Kandula Venakta Nageswara Rao, S/o. Krishna Murthy, Age 50 years, Bondada Village, Kalla Mandal, W.G.Dist., Represented by Sri B.V.Raghava Sarma, Advocate for Accused Nos.1 to 4.
FORM – B
Date of offence12.01.2019
Date of complaint01.07.2021
Date of Framing of Charges09.10.2023 Date of Commencement of evidence 12.06.2024 Date of which Judgment is reserved- Date of the Judgment 14.07.2025 Date of the Sentencing Order, if any-
II AJFCM, ELURU 4 CC No.431/2021
ACCUSED DETAILS :
Ran Name of accused Dat Date of Offences charged Whether Sente Period of
k of e of Releas with Acquitte nce Detention
Undergone
the arre e on d or impo
during
accu st Bail convicte sed
Trial for sed d purpose of section 428 of Cr.P.C.
1.M/s.VikasAgro– – Under section 7(1)Acquitted- - Products, 8-150,(a), (iii) of Essential MainRoad,CommoditiesAct, Chebrolu-522212,1955for Guntur District A.P.Contraventionof Rule 19(a) r/w. Part
(a) (I) of Fertilizers Control Order, 2003.
2.Mr.G.Anjaneyulu,– – Under section 7(1)Acquitted- - S/o. Gandhi, Age(a), (iii) of Essential 42years,CommoditiesAct, Designatedas1955for Manager,Contraventionof D.No.150,MainRule 19(a) r/w. Part Road,Chebrolu-(a) (I) of Fertilizers 522212,GunturControl Order, 2003. District.
3.ViswaVijetha– – Under section 7(1)Acquitted- - Agros India Private(a), (iii) of Essential Limited,CommoditiesAct, Sangadigunta,1955for Guntur-522003.Contraventionof Rule 19(a) r/w. Part
(a) (I) of Fertilizers Control Order, 2003.
4.M/s. Sri Sai Ganesh– – Under section 7(1)Acquitted- - Fertilizers&(a), (iii) of Essential Pesticides, D.No.4-CommoditiesAct, 98,Bondada1955for Village,KallaContraventionof Mandal, W.G.Dist.,Rule 19(a) r/w. Part A.P(a) (I) of Fertilizers Control Order, 2003.
5.SriKandula– – Under section 7(1)Acquitted- - Venakta Nageswara(a), (iii) of Essential Rao, S/o. KrishnaCommoditiesAct, Murthy, Age 501955for years,BondadaContraventionof Village,KallaRule 19(a) r/w. Part Mandal, W.G.Dist.,(a) (I) of Fertilizers Control Order, 2003.
II AJFCM, ELURU 5 CC No.431/2021
This case was placed before me for final hearing on 07.07.2025 in the presence of learned Senior Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri B.V.Raghava Sarma,
Advocate for Accused Nos.1 to 5 and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
: : J U D G M E N T : :
This is the complaint filed by Assistant Director of
Agriculture(Regular), Akiveedu, W.G. District against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence under sections 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 in Contravention of the Clause 19(a) read with Part-A(I) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985.
02. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
[a]On 23.01.2019 LW1 / Mandal Agricultural Officer, Kalla
Mandal visited the fertilizer stock point of accused No.1 to inspect the fertilizer stock which was manufactured and distributed by accused No.3. LW1 had drawn the sample of fertilizer under cover of mediators report in presence of LW2 and LW3 from the lot batch
No.01, Aug-2018 of 47X500 grams of 500 grams each as per the procedure specified in the schedule II of FCO 1985. The details of the sample are below
Name of the Fertilizer : CHELATED ZINC EDTA-12%
II AJFCM, ELURU 6 CC No.431/2021
Nutrient Content : ZINC EDTA -12%
Batch No. : 01, August-2018
Code No. of the Sample : 05-35-2018F-25 [b] The sample was drawn in Quadruplicate. Each sample was sent to the following: i) Assistant Director of Agriculture,
Fertilizer Coding Center, Guntur ii) Accused No.4 iii) Assistant
Director of Agriculture, Akiveedu as guard sample iv) Fertilizer
Testing Laboratory, Guntur. All the details of samples were mentioned in Form –J No.3178 as prescribed in said Order. Further, the ADA, FCO, Laboratory, Anantapuram District sent his analysis report in Form-L No.ROC No.16/2019 dt.11.12.2019 of the
Assistant Director of Agriculture, FCC, Guntur according to the said report the sample of fertilizer is Non- Standard as the same is not in conformity with the standards and specifications said in Schedule
I part A1 (b) 1(ii) and (ii) of F.C.O., 1985 (As amended up to June, 2003). The sampled fertilizer contains only 2.57 nutrient content of
Zinc content % by weight as against 12.00. On receipt of the said report the LW1 has served the Form-L to Accused Nos.1, 3, 4 along with show cause notice dt. 21.02.2019. The Accused No.4 replied that he is only marketer of ZINC EDTA-12% fertilizer manufactured and distributed by Accused No1 and 3 in his reply to show cause notice on 26.02.2019, requested LW1 to send the dealer sample for
II AJFCM, ELURU 7 CC No.431/2021
re-analysis. Accordingly on 28th February, 2019 LW4 on request of
LW1 has submitted the dealer’s sample and guard sample along with prescribed re-analysis fee in the form of Demand draft paid by
Accused No.4 in favour of Additional Director of Agriculture (Fertilizer)Roc.No.A/20/2018dt.28.02.2019.TheSpl.
Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh,
Amaravathi vide his letter No:Fert.(4) 117/2019, dt.02.05.2019, communicated the original analysis report of fertilizer sample (referee sample) bearing No.DDA/FCL/REF/(RES/Apr-RS-02/19-20) of Deputy Director of Agriculturer Fertilizer Control Laboratory,
Bangalore,statingthatthesamplebearingCode
No.DDA/FCL/REF(RES/Apr-RS-02/19-20) drawn on 15.04.2019 is not according to specifications and hence it is Non-Standard.
[c] Thus the Marketer i.e., Accused No.4, the Manufacturer and Distributor i.e., Accused Nos.1 and 3 had committed offence under clause 19(a) and (b) read with Schedule I part A1(b) 1 (iii) of
F.C.O, 1985 by manufacturing, distributing, selling the Non-
Standard fertilizers and made themselves punishable under Section 7(1) a (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Hence, the complaint.
03. This Court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in
II AJFCM, ELURU 8 CC No.431/2021
Contravention of the Clause 19(a) read with Part-A(I) of Fertilizer
Control Order, 1985 against the Accused Nos.1 to 5.
04. On appearance of Accused No.1 to 5, case copies were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
05. The Accused No.1 to 5 were examined U/Sec.251 of
Cr.P.C. The accusation was read over and explained to the accused
No.1 to 5 in Telugu language and the accused No.1 to 5 pleaded not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 7(1)(a)(ii) of
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in Contravention of the Clause 19(a) read with Part-A(I) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and claimed to make their defence.
06. To prove the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 5, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Exhibits P1 to
P17.
07. After closure of evidence on the side of the prosecution,
Accused No.1 to 5 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The Accused No.1 to 5 denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.
08. Heard the arguments of learned APP and the defence counsel.
09. Learned Counsel for Accused No.1 to 5 have submitted
II AJFCM, ELURU 9 CC No.431/2021
that there is no cogent evidence to prove the case against Accused
Nos.1 to 5 as the very drawal of samples is doubtful. Further, due procedure was not followed by L.W.1, at the time of drawing the samples, packing and sending them to testing laboratory, as such the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.
10.In support of their contention, the learned counsel for
Accused No.1 to 5 had relied upon (i) Farmers Service
Cooperative Society v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 , on the ground of limitation for the present complaint. It was argued that the limitation period for filing the present complaint is one year and as such, it had elapsed one year by the time the complaint is filed.
In the afore mentioned decision by the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh, it was observed that for offence under section 7(1)
(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, the sentence is upto seven years and the complaint is well within limitation. They further relied upon (ii) Ms.Janata Fertiliser centre and others v. State of
Punjab 2 , where the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court had observed that the samples which were drawn were never weighed except by approximation and the procedure prescribed under Part A of Schedule II of FCO are not followed by the fertilizer inspector, which would vitiate the proceedings of the Inspector and thereby 1 (2006) 2 ALT (Crl) 359. 2 (2023) 2 RCR (Criminal) 1.
II AJFCM, ELURU 10 CC No.431/2021
demolishes the case of prosecution. The conviction of accused was set aside for this reason. Further (iii) State of Maharastra v.
Baban and Another 3where it was discussed about the inconsistency of reports given by Public Analyst and the Central
Food Laboratory. The case was pertaining to adulteration of groundnut oil. As per the report of Public analyst, the sample of groundnut oil is adulterated with custard oil, where the Central
Laboratory report had not detected any of such. Considering the observations of learned Trial Judge, the Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay had upheld acquittal of the Accused.
11. Now the point for determination is:
Whether the Prosecution had proved the guilt of the
Accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under sections
7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in
Contravention of the Clause 19(a) read with Part-A(I) of
Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 beyond reasonable doubt?
12. POINT:
[a]It is the case of the prosecution that Accused Nos.1 to 5 have violated provisions of FCO i.e., Clause 19 (a) read with
Schedule I Part-A(I) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 under liable for punishment under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. To prove the case of prosecution, PW1 to PW3 are examined and Exs.P.1 to P17 are marked. While the Accused Nos.1 to 5 defended their case that they have not violated FCO and hence 3 2018(1) FAC 334.
II AJFCM, ELURU 11 CC No.431/2021
prayed to acquit them.
[b]To prove the commission of offence under sections 7(1)
(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in Contravention of the
Clause 19(a) read with Part-A(I) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, the prosecution had examined the Mandal Agricultural Officer is examined as PW1; mediator is examined as PW2; and ADA is examined as PW3. The prosecution got marked Exhibits P1 to P17 i.e., Exhibit P1 is Form-J, Exhibit P2 is Form-P, Exhibit P3 is Form K,
Exhibit P4 is mediatornama dt. 23.01.2019, Exhibit P5 is courier receipts 2 in number, Exhibit P6 is the analysis report along with memo dt.14.02.2019, Exhibit P7 is 2nd mediator report dt.
21.02.2019, Exhibit P8 is the Annexure-VII, Exhibit P9 is original
Tax Invoice No.SGSGSTM 919 dt.2.1.2019 of Zn EDTA 12%, Exhibit
P10 is the signature on Ex.P.4 mediator report, Exhibit P11 is the show cause notice dt.21.2.2019 given to A1 to A5, Exhibit P12 is the reply received from A1 dt.25.02.2019, Exhibit P13 is the reply received from A4 dt.26.02.2019, Exhibit P14 is three declaration forms of A4, PW1 and himself (3 in number), Exhibit P15 is the reanalysis report dt.15.04.2019 in Form-L along with memo dt.02.05.2019, Exhibit P16 is the undated reply letter of A4, Exhibit
P17 is the reply of A1 dt.26.02.2019.
[c] Regarding the commission of offence under sections 7(1)
II AJFCM, ELURU 12 CC No.431/2021
(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in Contravention of the
Clause 19(a) read with Schedule I Part-A(I) of Fertilizer Control
Order, 1985, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 are relevant. PW1 deposed that, on 23.01.2019, at about 10.00 a.m he visited
Accused No.4 shop situated at Bondada Village Kalla Mandal and he found the Accused No.5 who is doing business and some farmers.
He verified the stock registers and stock. He found Zinc EDTA 12% packets. He suspected the quality of said fertilizer and drawn samples in presence of two mediators namely, Addepalli Srinivas and Soma Ganga Raju. There are 47 packets each consisting 500 grams in total 23.5 Kgs. He verified the batch numbers and confirmed that the said packets belong to same batch number. In their presence, he collected four samples at quantity of 500 grams each out of 23.5 Kgs Zinc EDTA 12% micro nutrient. He filled Form-
P, Form-K and Form-J. Each sample is 500 grams in Polythene cover and kept in a cloth bag and sealed each bag by placing Form-P. Out of four samples, he gave one sample to Accused No.4 along with
Form-J and obtained the signature of Accused No.5. Second sample was sent to the ADA, Akividu as referee sample. Third and fourth samples were sent to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Fertilizer coding center, Guntur on the same day i.e. on 23-1-2019 through courier service. He obtained the signatures of the mediators along
II AJFCM, ELURU 13 CC No.431/2021
with Accused No.5 on the mediator report scribed by Agricultural
Extension Officer. On 21-2-2019, he received first analysis report from Coding Center, ADA, Guntur, along with analysis report of ADA,
Ananthapuram stating that the fails in total Zn EDTA 12% content available total Zn EDTA 12% content is 2.57 out of 12 and deviation is -9.43. It comes under non standard fertilizer. On 21-2-2019, he went to Accused No.4 shop and served the analysis report to
Accused No.4 by securing the presence of the two mediators namely Thokala Peruswamy and Z. Satyanarayana. He verified the stock physically but there is no stock. He seized one original tax invoice No.SGSGSTM-919 dated 2-1-2019 of Zn EDTA 12%, 1st page and stock entered page of stock register and bill books. The same
Agriculture Extension Officer prepared mediatornama and obtained the signatures of same mediators and Accused No.5. He filled
Annexure-VII and taken the signature of Accused No.5 on it and handed over one copy to him. He submitted the originals to the
ADA, Akiveedu for further action.
[d] PW.2 deposed in his chief examination that, about 5 years back, at request of A.O., he signed on a blank paper in AO office. No sample was drawn in his presence. During in his cross he denied suggestion that samples were drawn by PW.1 his presence and he is deposing false evidence as Accused No.4 shop is situated
II AJFCM, ELURU 14 CC No.431/2021
next to his shop.
[e]PW.3 deposed in his chief examination that, he issued show cause notice to Accused Nos.1 to 5 on 21.02.2019. The
Accused No.1 had issued reply notice dt.25.02.2019, Accused No.4 issued reply notice dt.26.02.2019. In their reply Accused No.4 requested to send the sample for reanalysis. Himself, PW.1 and
Accused No.4 gave declaration and sent the guard and dealers samples for reanalysis to the Coding Center at Commissioner and
Director of Agriculture, Amaravathi on 28.02.2019. On 02.05.2019 they received the reanalysis report along with Memo in Form-L. The report of reanalysis is received from Office of Deputy Director of
Agriculture, Fertilizers Control Laboratory, Bangalore as non- standard and the sample is not according to specifications and fails in nutrient content. The reanalysis report is served to the Accused
Nos.1 and 4. They gave a reply by informing the responsible persons as Accused Nos.2. Accused No.4 gave reply in undated letter informing that responsible person as Accused No.4. On 07.03.2019 he filed complaint after obtaining the legal opinion.
[f]During the cross examination PW.1 deposed in his evidence that on 23.01.2019 he conducted routine inspection in accused premises. He had not received any complaints from farmers with regard to quality of fertilizer viz., chelated zinc EDTA’.
II AJFCM, ELURU 15 CC No.431/2021
Accused No.1 manufacturing company is represented by Accused
No.2. He had not mentioned in Ex.P4 mediatornama that the samples collected were duly sealed. He failed to mention the code number and batch number in Ex.P4.He had also admitted that the manner of collecting the sample is not mentioned in Ex.P4. He had not weighed the samples at the time of collecting. He did not make any representative sample. It is true that as per Clause 30 of FCO, the sample must be sent for analyst within three days from the date of drawl. He sent the sample to coding center, Guntur and from there they will be sent for analysis. It is true that he did not directly sent the collected samples for analysis. It is true that he did not receive any receipt of acknowledgment that the sample was received and he had no such documentary proof. He had not filed the gazette notification declaring him as inspector to respective area as prescribed under Clause 27 of FCO before this court along with complaint. The said fertilizer is powdered fertilizer. It is true that he did not use any probe to collect the sample. It is true that in 2nd mediatornama i.e., Ex.P7 it is not mentioned that accused were not intimated about re-analysis of sample in case of any objections on the report. He denied suggestion that the variation in analysis report occurred due to improper packing of sample and sending the same for testing lab for analysis. He denied suggestion that due
II AJFCM, ELURU 16 CC No.431/2021
procedure was not followed as prescribed under FCO while collecting the samples and send the same to analyst. He denied suggestion that the analyst has not followed the procedure laid down under
FCO for analyzing the samples. He denied suggestion that he is not competent officer to inspect the premises and collect the samples from Accused No.4 shop. He denied suggestion that the entire material is prepared in the office and no sample is lifted from
Accused No.4 shop. It is true that as per FCO only three samples must be drawn. Witness volunteers that as per the Executive order by the then Commissioner four samples must be drawn. It is true that he did not file the executive instructions before this Court.
[g]During cross examination PW.3 deposed that he had verified the entire record before filing the complaint. The dealer and referee samples were personally send to the Coding Center i.e.,
Commissioner and Director fo Agriculture, Amaravathi and endorsement is taken from them. He had not filed acknowledgment
before the Court that the dealer and referee samples were sent to
the Testing Laboratory at Bangalore. Witness added that coding center will send the samples. He had not obtained such acknowledgment while filing the complaint before the Court. It is true that the reports from Referral laboratory must be received within 30 days as per Clause 30 (2) of Fertilizer Control Order. The
II AJFCM, ELURU 17 CC No.431/2021
dealer and referry samples were sent by him on 28.02.2019. He do not know when the Coding Center i.e., Director of Agriculture,
Amaravathi had sent the sample for reanalysis to the Testing
Laboratory, Bangalore. On 02.05.2019 he received the reanalysis report. It is true that he received the replier after expiry of 30 days.
It is true that he had not obtained any acknowledgment and filed
before this Court that the reanalysis reports are served to the
Accused Nos.1 and 4. It is true that there are variations in the reports i.e., analysis report and reanalysis report i.e., Ex.P.6 and
P.15. The complaint is filed before this Court on 07.03.2020. It is true that there is more than 8 months of delay in filing the complaint before the Court. He denied suggestion that he had not followed the procedure laid under FCO. He further denied suggestion that the complaint is not maintainable against Accused
Nos.1 to 5. He denied suggestion that there is no fault of Accused
Nos.1 to 5 in this case. He further denied suggestion that the allegations raised against Accused Nos.1 to 5 are not true and correct.
13. It is settled principle of law that the burden of proof lies on the complainant to prove that the Accused no. 1 to 5 are guilty of offence beyond all reasonable doubt. The procedure laid under the Code has to be scrupulously adhered by P.W1 at the time of
II AJFCM, ELURU 18 CC No.431/2021
inspecting the premises. As per clause 27 of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, the State Government, by its notification appoints an individual as inspector and defines the limit of local area within which such he shall exercise power. However, P.W1 had not filed any such proceeding or notification in support of his contention. Further, it is apparent to refer Part A to Schedule II of Fertilizer Control
Order. Schedule II of the fertilizer control Order prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Fertilizer Inspector at the time of drawing fertilizer. This procedure is contemplated under the Order so as to ensure that every step followed is judiciously done and no prejudice is caused to the accused. Therefore, strict compliance of procedure is essential and mandatory in nature. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer Clause 1 of Part A to Schedule II of the Fertilizer
Control Order which reads as follows:
1. General requirements of sampling - In drawing samples, the following measures and precautions should be observed :
(a) samples shall not be taken at a place exposed to rain/sun;
(b) the sampling instruments shall be clean and dry when used ;
(c) the material being sampled, the sampling instrument and the bags of samples should be free from any adventitious contamination ;
(d) to draw a representative sample, the contents of each bag selected for sampling should be mixed as thoroughly as possible by suitable means ;
(e) the sample should be kept in suitable, clean dry and air tight glass or screwed hard polythene bottle of about 400
II AJFCM, ELURU 19 CC No.431/2021
gms. capacity or in a thick gauged polythene bag. This should be put in a cloth bag which may be sealed with the inspector's seal after putting inside the detailed description as specified in Form 'J'. Identifiable details may also be put on the cloth bag like sample No/code No. or any other details which enables its identification ;
(f) each sample bag should be sealed air tight after filling and marked with details of sample type and brand of fertiliser, name of dealer/manufacturer and the name of Inspector who has collected sample.”
14.It is clear from the above that Sample must be drawn with utmost precaution by using clean and dry instruments. Clause 1(e) had more specifically mentioned that the samples should be kept in a suitable, clean dry and air tight glass or screwed hard polythene bottle of about 400 grams of capacity or in a thick gauged polythene bag. Then this should be placed in a cloth bag, mention all the particulars and impress fertilizer inspector’s seal on the same. This is prescribed to ensure that the sample is not exposed to rain or sun, which would wane the effectiveness of fertilizer.
15.In the case at hand, P.W.1 had clearly deposed that each sample was placed in a polythene cover and sealed them. Then the samples were kept in a cloth bag, placed Form P, tied them with thread and put seal. It is clear that samples were neither kept in clean dry and air tight glass or screwed hard polythene bottle of about 400 grams of capacity or in a thick gauged polythene bag.
Admittedly, P.W.1 deposed that he collected 500 grams of the
II AJFCM, ELURU 20 CC No.431/2021
sample in polythene cover, sealed it and then placed it in cloth bag.
It is doubtful whether the polythene cover is ‘thick gauged polythene bag’ or ‘clean dry and air tight glass or screwed hard polythene bottle of about 400 grams of capacity’. The thickness or the quality of the polythene bag used for collecting and placing the sample is not specified by P.W.1, and to that extent Ex.P4 mediator report also does not specify the same in order to ensure that the bag is free from exposure to air or moisture.
16Further, the said fertilizer is in packets. If that is the case, P.W.1 ought to have followed procedure laid in Schedule II
Part A (4). However, he had neither mentioned the batch number, nor the code, in Ex.P4 report which would aid to ascertain whether the samples belong to same batch and code number or not.
Moreover, P.W1 had not used any probe or other instrument to draw the sample, considering that the sample is powdered fertilizer. P.W1 admitted during his cross examination that he had not weighed the sample. On this aspect, the counsel for Accused No.1 to 5 had relied upon M/s Janta Fertilisers Centre and Others case (supra), where the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana had observed that the inspector had not complied with due procedure by not weighing the sample which is fatal to the case of prosecution. In the present case, P.W1 had clearly admitted that he had not weighed the
II AJFCM, ELURU 21 CC No.431/2021
sample. It is therefore clear that P.W.1 had not followed the procedure at the time of collecting the samples.
17. It is also apposite to refer Ex.P6 and Ex.P15 which are analysis and re-analysis reports of ADA, Fertilizer Coding Center,
Guntur and Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Andhra
Pradesh, Guntur, respectively. There are variations in both the reports and the same is admitted by P.W.2 during cross examination. However, no reason or explanation was offered by either of them as to why there is variation in both the reports. The
Counsel for Accused Nos.1 to 5 had relied upon State of Maharatra vs. Baban and Ors., (supra) for variance in reports of state and
Central Laboratories. The present case law is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The collected sample in the present case is chelated Zinc, containing micronutrients. Ex.P6 and P15 reports have variation in the nutrient content not complete absence of the nutrient content. There is no mention about the weather condition at the time of drawing the samples. Though the sample was sent by P.W.1 on the same day of collecting the sample, it reached the laboratory on 28.01.2019 i.e., after five days of drawing sample. However, as per clause 30 of FCO, the samples must be dispatched within three working days from the date of drawing the same.
II AJFCM, ELURU 22 CC No.431/2021
18.On such receipt of sample, the laboratory shall analyse and send the report within prescribed time period, considering the nature of fertilizer. In the case at hand, Zinc EDTA is a chelated micronutrient fertilizer. If the fertilizer is other than bio fertiliser, organic fertilizer and de oiled cake fertilizer, the laboratory shall analyse and send it within 15 days. Ex.P6 report was forwarded to
P.W1 after expiry of fifteen days i.e., on 14.02.2019 i.e., after 17 days from the date of receipt of sample by the laboratory. This is a clear violation of the procedure laid down under Clause 30 of FCO.
It is clear from the evidence that due procedure as contemplated under Schedule II, Part A of the Fertilizer Control Order is not followed at the time of collecting samples, packing and forwarding for analysis and that exposure to atmosphere had resulted in variation between Ex. P6 and P15 reports.
19.Furthermore, Ex.P4 Mediator report does not mention about the time of drawing samples, weather condition at the time of drawing samples, weight of sample, the manner in which the sample is drawn, nature and instrument used for drawing sample and that whether the sample is drawn randomly out of total stock or not. There is no such endorsement as to who scribed Ex.P4 mediator report. It is unclear as to who scribed Ex.P4 and P7 mediator reports. P.W.3 who acted as mediator had deposed that he
II AJFCM, ELURU 23 CC No.431/2021
signed on Ex.P4 mediator report at officer of P.W1 and does not know its contents. In absence of any evidence, it is unsafe to rely upon the evidence of P.W.1 alone, and it is doubtful whether due procedure was followed at the time of inspecting the premises and collecting samples.
20.Further, the counsel for Accused No.1 to 5 had relied upon the case of Farmers service cooperative society case (supra) on the point of limitation. It is the case that there is delay of 8 months in lodging the complaint. As per section 7(1)(a)(ii) of
Essential Commodities Act, the offence is punishable with imprisonment upto seven years. Only when the offence is punishable under section 7(1)(a)(g) of the EC Act, the period of limitation as per Cr.P.c is one year. Point Nos.1 and 2 pertaining to this in the aforesaid caselaw were answered together at para 16, against the petitioners. Therefore, in view of observation in the aforesaid case law, the present complaint is within limitation.
21. The case of prosecution is completely relying upon Ex.P6 and
Ex.P15 i.e., analysis and re-analysis reports respectively, which say that the fertilizer is non-standard. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer section 293 of Cr.P.C. As per section 293, reports made by certain Government Scientific experts are accepted as evidence.
Section 293(4) contains list of experts to whom the section applies.
II AJFCM, ELURU 24 CC No.431/2021
Fertilizer analyst is not mentioned within the list of experts to whom the section applies. The fertilizer testing laboratory analyst was not called as witness in order to prove the contents of the report. In the case of Visakha Agro chemicals (P) Ltd. and Others vs.
Fertiliser Inspector-cum-Assistant Director of Agriculture
and another4it was observed as follows:
“10. These six categories of officers who issue certain documents, their documents have to be accepted by the court as valid evidence without examining the author of those documents. Unlike the provisions contemplated under section 13 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 which provides for exempting the author of the documents issued by these authorities for the purpose of accepting the documents as evidence in the court, the fertilizer control order, 1985 does not exempt the author of the documents from examining him
in the court for the purpose of accepting the documents
issued by him as sufficient evidence, even though they are not examined.
11. In the absence of such a provision available in the fertilizer control order, I am inclined to say in the light of the provisions of section 293 Cr.P.C., the prosecution ought to have taken steps to examine the author of the document - Ex.P4. Non-examining the author of the document-Ex.P4, in my considered view, is fatal to the prosecution case to convict the accused guilty of committing the offence under these provisions when the prosecution case depends only on the report issued by the authority under the fertilizer control order, 1985.”
22. In the present case, the author of analysis report was not examined as witness on behalf of complainant. The fertilizer 4(1997) 1 AP LJ (SN 1) 104 at para 10 and 11.
II AJFCM, ELURU 25 CC No.431/2021
control order does not exempt the author of such report from examining as witness in the court in order to accept the report issued by him as sufficient evidence without examining them.
Therefore, the prosecution ought to have taken steps to examine them in order to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, in light of decision referred supra. Hence, after considering the evidence adduced, decisions relied upon and the defences taken, this Court is of opinion that the guilt of Accused Nos.1 to 5 is not established by the complainant beyond a reasonable doubt, that they have violated the clause 19(a) of Fertilizer Control Order,1985 which is punishable under section 7 (1) (a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act,1955. The point is answered accordingly.
23.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 for contravention of Rule 19(a) read with
Part (a) (I) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 5 shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated under Section 437(A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuables if any shall be destroyed after expiry of
II AJFCM, ELURU 26 CC No.431/2021
appeal time. The accused Nos.1 to 5 had not undergone any remand period.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 14th day of July, 2025.
Sd/-B.Rachana
II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-
II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
ELURU.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution:-
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
(Eye witness, Police Witness, Expert witness, Medical witness, Panch witness, other witness)
PW1Y.V.S.PrasadMandal Agricultural Officer
PW2Addepalli SrinivasMediator
PW3E.Anil KumariADA
For Defence Evidence:-
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
(Eye witness, Police Witness, Expert witness, Medical witness, Panch witness, other witness)
NIL
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Prosecution :-
Exhibit P1: Form-J Exhibit P2: Form–P Exhibit P3: Form–K
II AJFCM, ELURU 27 CC No.431/2021
Exhibit P4: Mediatornama dt.23.01.2019 Exhibit P5: Original Courier receipts two in number Exhibit P6: Analysis report along with memo dt.14.02.2019 Exhibit P7: 2nd mediator report dt.21.02.2019 at 11.45 a.m Exhibit P8: Annexure-VII Exhibit P9: Original Tax Invoice No.SGSGSTM-919 dt.2.1.2019 of Zn EDTA 12% Exhibit P10: Signature on Ex.P.4 mediators report Exhibit P11: Show cause notice dt.21.2.2019 given to A1 to A5 Exhibit P12: Reply received from A1 dt.25.02.2019 Exhibit P13: Reply received from A4 dt.26.02.2019 Exhibit P14: Three declaration forms of A4, PW.1 and himself (3 in number) Exhibit P15: Reanalysis report dt.15.04.2019 in Form-L along with memo dt.2.5.2019 Exhibit P16: Undated reply letter of A4 Exhibit P17: Reply of A1 dt.26.02.2019.
For Defence :-- Nil -.
MATERIAL OBJECTS
- Nil -
Sd/-B.Rachana
II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
ELURU.