http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NOHAR CHAND

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/05/1984

BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)

CITATION:  1984 AIR 1492            1984 SCR  (3) 839  1984 SCC  (3) 512        1984 SCALE  (1)869

ACT:      Territorial Jurisdiction of the Criminal Court, whether the  Court   where  sub-standard  fertilizer  was  found  be marketed will  have the  jurisdiction to take cognizance and try the manufacturer of sub-standard fertilizer, even if the manufacturing activity is at an entirely different place and under different  court jurisdiction along with the marketing agent-Code of  Criminal Procedure,  1973 (Act  II of  1974), sections 179 and 180, scope of.

HEADNOTE:      The   respondent    was   carrying   on   business   of manufacturing fertilizers  at Ludhiana  under the  name  and style of Messrs Varinder Agro-Chemicals (India) and marketed his product  through his  agent Messrs  Sachdeva Enterprises Kapurthala. On  finding the sample collected by a Fertilizer Inspector from  the said agent on December 12, 1978 to be of sub-standard,  quality   the  Chief   Agricultural  officer, Kapurthala filed  a criminal complaint being CC No. 156-C of 1980 on December 24, 1980 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala  against the  two partners  of Messrs Sachdeva Enterprises  and the Respondent under s. 13A of the Essential Commodities  Act, 1955  read with  s. 13(1) (a) of the  Fertilizers  Control  order  1957.  On  July  20,  1981 respondent moved  an  application  before  the  trial  court praying that he be discharged and the proceedings be dropped against him  on the  ground that the Kapurthala Court had no territorial jurisdiction  to try  him because  he carried on business of  manufacture of fertilizers at Ludhiana. Relying no the  decision of  the Gujarat  High  Court  in  State  of Gujarat v.  Agro-Chemicals etc.  (1980 Cr. L. J. p. 516) the Learned Chief  Judicial Magistrate discharged the respondent and dropped  the proceedings against him. The Criminal Revn. Application No.  48 of 1981 filed by the State of Punjab was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala holding that in view of the provisions of Section 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Kapurthala Court had jurisdiction to try  the   Respondent  along   with  the  other  co-accused. Thereupon the respondent preferred a revision petition being Crl. Misc.  No. 1413  M of  1982 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.  A learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court relying on  the decision of that Court in Satinder Singh and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

Ors. v.  State af  Punjab, Crl. Misc. Appln. No. 1158-M/1981 dated 24-2-1982 which accepted the view taken by the Gujarat High Court,  allowed the revision petition and set aside the decision of  the Additional  Sessions Judge. Hence the State Appeal by Special Leave of the Court.      Allowing the appeal, the Court 840 ^      HELD: 1.  The Court  in whose jurisdiction sub-standard fertilizer  was   found  to   be  marketed   will  have  the jurisdiction to  try manufacturer of sub-standard fertilizer even  if  the  manufacturing  activity  is  at  an  entirely different place.  The manufacturer as well as the dealer can be  tried   at  a   place  where  the  consequences  of  the manufacturing and  selling of  sub standard  fertilizer  had ensued as  envisaged in  ss. 179  and 180  of  the  Code  of Criminal Procedure. [in]      1: 2.  Now if  manufacturing sub-standard fertilizer is by  itself   an  offence   and  marketing  the  sub-standard fertilizer is  itself a  distinct offence  but they  are  so inter connected  as cause  and effect,  both can be tried at one or  the other  place.  If  one  manufacturers  the  sub- standard fertilizer,  wherever it  is  marketed  the  inter- relation or  casual connection  is of  cause and effect. The situation will  be adequately  covered by ss. 179 and 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [843G-H]           Incharge Production,  Haryana State  Coopt. Supply      And Marketing  Federation Ltd.  (HAFED)  Fertilizer  v.      State of  Punjab; Crl. Misc. No. 6763 M of 1982 decided      by the High Court on 9-3-1983 approved.      1: 3.  Where a sample of fertilizer is taken from a bag which  was  in  the  same  condition  as  delivered  by  the manufacturer and  it was  in possession of a marketing agent manufacture  and   sale  of  sub-standard  fertilizer  would constitute  indisputably   one  transaction.   But  this  is predicated upon  the facts  which may  be disclosed  in  the trial and proved. [844D-E]      Bhagwan Das  Jagdish Chander  v.  Delhi  Administration [1975] Supp. S.C.R 30, distinguished.

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  No. 247 of 1984.      Appeal by  Special leave  from the  judgement and order dated the  28th July,  1982 of  the Punjab  and Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc. No. 1472-M/82.      K.C Dua and S.K. Bagga for the Appellant.      Frank Anthony and Sushil Kumar for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      DESAI, J. Special leave granted.      One Nohar Chand, the respondent herein, was carrying on 841 business of  manufacturing fertilisers at Ludhiana under the name and  style of  M/s Varinder Agro-Chemicals (India). One inspector designated  as Fertiliser  Inspector  visited  the premises of  M/s Sachdeva  Enterprises, Kapurthala  (’agent’ for short) on December 12, 1978 and obtained a sample of the fertiliser manufactured  by  Nohar  Chand  which  was  being marketed by  the agent.  The sample  was  obtained  for  the purpose of analysis to ascertain whether it conformed to the prescribed standard.  On analysis  it was  found to  be sub- standard. The Chief Agricultural Officer, Kapurthala filed a criminal complaint  being C.C. No. 156-C of 1980 on December

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

24, 1980  in the  Court of  the Chief  Judicial  Magistrate, Kapurthala  against   the  two   partners  of  M/s  Sachdeva Enterprises, one  Raj  Shetty  and  respondent  Nohar  Chand Gupta, the  manufacturer of sub-standard fertiliser u/s 13-A of the  Essential Commodities  Act,. 1955  read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Fertilisers Control Order, 1957. The learned Chief Judicial  Magistrate framed the charge against all the accused for  the aforementioned  offence. On  July 20,  1981 respondent Nohar  Chand  moved  an  application  before  the learned Magistrate  praying that  he be  discharged and  the proceedings be  dropped against  him on  the ground that the Court  of  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Kapurthala  had  no territorial jurisdiction  to try  him because  he carried on business of  manufacture of  fertilisers  at  Ludhiana.  The learned Chief  Judicial Magistrate following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat v. Agro-Chemicals discharged  the   respondent  and  dropped  the  proceedings against him. The State of Punjab preferred Criminal Revision Application No.  48 of  1981 in  the Court  of  the  learned Additional Sessions  Judge, Kapurthala  who by  his judgment and order  dated February  13, 1982  set aside  the order of learned Chief  Judicial Magistrate  holding that  in view of the provisions  contained in  Section 180  of  the  Code  of Criminal  Procedure,   the  Court   of  the  Chief  Judicial Magistrate,  Kapurthala   had  jurisdiction   to   try   the respondent along  with the  other co-accused.  Thereupon the respondent preferred  a  revision  petition  being  Criminal Misc. No.  1473-M of  1982 in  the High  Court of Punjab and Haryana. A  learned Single Judge of the High Court held that in view  of the decision in Satinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab  which accepted the view taken by the Gujarat High Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was in error in interfering with  the order  of the  learned Chief  Judicial Magistrate  and   that  the  Court  of  the  Chief  Judicial Magistrate, 842 Kapurthala had  no jurisdiction  to  try  Nohar  Chand,  the manufacturer.  Accordingly   the  revision  application  was allowed and  the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was  set aside  and  the  one  by  the  learned  Chief Judicial Magistrate  was  restored.  Hence  this  appeal  by special leave.      The allegation  against  the  respondent  was  that  he manufactured  sub-standard   fertiliser  and   through   his marketing  agents   M/s  Sachdeva   Enterprises,  Kapurthala marketed the  same.  The  offence  was  disclosed  when  the Fertiliser  Inspector  took  a  sample  of  the  substandard fertiliser from the marketing agents at Kapurthala. It is an admitted  position   that  the   respondent   who   is   the manufacturer  carries   on  his  business  of  manufacturing fertilisers at  Ludhiana. The question posed is: whether the Court of  Chief Judicial  Magistrate, Kapurthala  where  the marketing agents  of sub-standard fertiliser manufactured by the respondent  marketed the same, will have jurisdiction to try the  respondent, the  manufacturer of  the  sub-standard fertiliser along with the marketing agents.      The learned  Single Judge  of the  High Court following the  decision   in  Satinder  Singh’s  case  held  that  the manufacturer of  sub-standard  fertiliser  cannot  be  tried where the  commodity was  being marketed.  The view taken by the High  Court with respect is wholly untenable in law. But before examining  the legal  position subsequent development of law  in the  same High  Court on  this very  point may be noticed.      To begin  with, let it be pointed out that the decision

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

against which  the present  appeal is being heard was quoted before another  learned Single  Judge of the same High Court and as  the learned  Single Judge  had grave doubt about the correctness of  the view  taken by the learned Judge in this case, he referred the matter for authoritative pronouncement to a  larger bench  of the  same High  Court. This  referred matter:  Incharge   Production,  Haryana  State  Cooperative Supply and  Marketing Federation  Ltd. (HAFED) Fertilizer v. State of  Punjab came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the  High Court.  The  Division  Bench  referred  to  the decision rendered  by the  learned Single Judge in this case and clearly  disapproved  it  and  in  terms  overruled  it. Simultaneously it  also overruled  the decision  in Satinder Singh’s case  which the  learned Judge  had followed in this case. It can be safely said that the larger 843 bench of  the High  Court has  disapproved the view taken by the learned Judge in this case.      The respondent,  the manufacturer  of the  sub-standard fertiliser is  to be  tried alongwith those who marketed the sub-standard fertiliser  manufactured by  him as his agents. The question  is whether  the court  where the  sub-standard fertiliser is  marketed would  have jurisdiction  to try the manufacturer   of    the   sub-standard   fertiliser   whose manufacturing activity  is at  a different  place. This very argument was  posed before  the Division  Bench of  the High Court. The  High Court  after referring  to Sections 179 and 180 of  the Code  of Criminal  Procedure, 1973 held that the court where sub-standard fertiliser was found to be marketed will have  the jurisdiction  to try the manufacturer of sub- standard fertiliser even if the manufacturing activity is at an entirely  different place.  The Division  Bench held that the manufacturer  as well  as the  dealer can  be tried at a place  where  the  consequences  of  the  manufacturing  and selling of  sub-standard fertiliser  had ensued as envisaged in Sections  179 and  180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That in our opinion appears to be the correct view in law.      Section 179  provides that when an act is an offence by reason of  anything which has been done and of a consequence which has  ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a  court within  whose local  jurisdiction such thing has been done  or  such  consequence  has  ensued.  Section  180 provides that  where an  act is  an offence by reason of its relation to  any other act which is also an offence or which would be  an offence  if the doer were capable of committing an offence, the first-mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried  by a  court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done.      Now if  manufacturing  sub-standard  fertiliser  is  by itself an  offence and marketing the sub-standard fertiliser is itself a distinct offence but they are so inter-connected as cause  and effect,  both can be tried at one or the other place. If  one  manufactures  the  sub-standard  fertiliser, wherever  it   is  marketed  the  inter-relation  or  casual connection is  of cause  and effect.  The situation  will be adequately covered  by Secs.  179 and  180 of  the  Code  of Criminal Procedure.  We are  in  agreement  with  the  later decision of  the Division  Bench rendered  on March  9, 1983 that the  court where  the sub-standard  fertiliser is being marketed will equally have the 844 jurisdiction  to   try  the   manufacturer  of  sub-standard fertiliser. This  is so  obvious that any further discussion appears to us to be superfluous.      Mr. Frank Anthony, learned counsel who appeared for the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

respondent   urged   that   the   concurring   decision   of Alagiriswami, J.  in Bhagwandas  Jagdish  Chander  v.  Delhi Administration would clearly show that the manufacture of an adulterated article  of food  and selling the same cannot be said to  be part and parcel of the same transaction and that unless therefore  the complaint  shows that  the  sample  of fertiliser was  taken from  a bag of fertiliser as delivered by  the   manufacturer,  it   is  distinctly  possible  that adulteration may  have taken  place on a subsequent occasion and therefore  one cannot  infer manufacture of sub-standard fertiliser from  it being  so marketed  when the  sample was taken from the marketing agency. This approach overlooks the fact that  the trial is yet to be held. One can envisage two situations. When  a sample of fertiliser is taken from a bag which  was  in  the  same  condition  as  delivered  by  the manufacturer and  it was  in possession of a marketing agent manufacture  and   sale  of  sub-standard  fertiliser  would constitute  indisputably   one  transaction.   But  this  is predicated upon  the facts  which may  be disclosed  in  the trial and  proved. In Bhagwandas Jagdish Chander’s case, the allegation was that the appellant before the court sold ghee to a  vendor which  was on  analysis found to be adulterated and both  were jointly  tried under Section 7 read with Sec. 16 of  the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In the course of  trial, the  purchaser of ghee wanted warrantor to be discharged  so that  he can  be  examined  as  a  defence witness to  prove his own purchase of the offending article. This  application   was  granted   and  the   warrantor  was acquitted. After the acquittal of the warrantor, the learned Magistrate impleaded the manufacturer Mr. Gauri Shanker Prem Narain  under   section  20-A  of  the  Prevention  of  Food Adulteration Act,  1954. An  appeal  was  preferred  by  the Municipal Corporation  of Delhi against the acquittal of the warrantor and  the other  accused. The High Court maintained the acquittal  of Lakshmi Narain but set aside the acquittal of warrantor.  That is how the matter came up to this Court. We fail  to see  how this  decision  can  at  all  help  the respondent in this case. However, reliance was placed on one observation in  the concurring  judgment of Alagiriswami, J. which reads as under: 845           "It would  be noticed that while the charge states      that the  sample of  ghee purchased from Lakshmi Narain      was found  to be  adulterated, there  is no  allegation      that the  ghee sold  by the appellant to Lakshmi Narain      was adulterated.  While it may be readily conceded that      the common  object or  common  intention  or  unity  of      purpose between  the manufacturer,  the distributor and      the vendor  was to sell the article of food sold, it is      not said that it was to sell the adulterated article of      food." At a  later stage,  it is observed that ’the validity of the charge has  to be  decided on  the facts  put forward as the prosecution case. If it is not established against anyone of them that  the article  of food  manufacture, distributed or sold by  him was  adulterated that person will be acquitted, not because  the charge  was not  valid or was defective but because there  was no  proof to substantiate the charge. But without that  allegation there  cannot be said to be a unity of purpose  or common object or common intention on the part of all  of them  who manufacture,  distribute  or  sell  the adulterated  food.’   It  was  further  observed  that  "the manufacture, distribution and sale of adulterated ghee would be the same transaction if it was found to be adulterated at all the three stages. Otherwise it only means that they were

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

all same  transaction only  in the  sense  that  the  common object of  all of  them is the selling of the ghee." How the extracted observation in any way helps the respondent passes comprehension. Firstly,  the question of jurisdiction of the court trying the offender was never raised in that case. And here the  respondent was discharged on the ground of want of jurisdiction. Secondly,  the decision proceeded on the facts of the  case as  would be evident from the extracted passage which recites  the charge.  That aspect  does not  figure in this case.  Let it be made clear that no affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent in this Court, nor the complaint was read  over to us. And the case proceeds on the averments not presently  disputed. Therefore  in this case we are left with the  allegations as  found in  the judgment of the High Court and  the learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge  and  it clearly establishes  that where  the marketing  agent of the manufacturer of fertiliser which is found to be sub-standard is being  prosecuted for  marketing sub-standard fertiliser, the manufacturer  can be  tried with him and the court where the  substandard   fertiliser   was   marketed   will   have jurisdiction to try them both. 846      Therefore the  High Court was in error in setting aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. This was the only  point in  this appeal and as it clearly transpired that the  High Court  was in  error in  interfering with the order of  the learned Additional Sessions Judge, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is quashed and set  aside  and  the  judgment  of  the  learned  Additional Sessions Judge is restored. S.R.                                         Appeal allowed. 847