http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  887 of 2004

PETITIONER: State of A.P.

RESPONDENT: Farmers Service Coop. Society & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/08/2004

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 900/2004

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

                        Leave granted.

       The State of Andhra Pradesh has questioned correctness of the judgment  rendered by a learned single judge accepting the prayer made under Section 482  of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ’Code’) and quashing  proceedings initiated against the respondents.  

Background facts in nutshell are as follows:

       On 24th July, 1998 the Fertilizer Inspector inspected the premises of  Respondent No. 1 \026 Society, which was dealing in the business of fertilizers.  He  collected samples of Zinc Sulphate and sent the same for chemical analysis.   After analysis of the samples, the report of the concerned laboratory was that the  sample did not accord to the requisite specification.  Accordingly investigation  was done and on completion thereof the concerned Assistant Director of  Agriculture, Medak  filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial First Class   Magistrate,  Jogipet.  The same was registered as CC No. 453 of 2000.  All the  respondents were shown as accused persons in the complaint.   

The respondents filed the petition under Section 482 of the Code which  was registered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court as Crl. Petition No. 3977 of  2001.  The primary stand was that the maximum punishment, provided for an  offence punishable under Section 7(1) (a)(ii)  of the Essential Commodities Act,  1955 (in short the ’Act’),  the violation of which was alleged in the complaint, is  one year and, therefore, the charge-sheet which was filed about two years after  the date of offence is clearly barred by limitation.  The plea was accepted by  learned single judge and the proceedings in the CC No. 453/2000 on the file of  Judicial Magistrate, First Class were quashed.

       According to the learned counsel for the appellant the High Court has  fallen into grave error by holding that the maximum punishment for an offence  relatable to Section 7(1)(a)(ii) is 1 year while it is, in fact, 7 years.  Therefore, on  that score alone the High Court’s order is liable to set aside.

       In response learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted  that the offence with which respondents could be charged even if the accusations  in the complaint are accepted in toto relates to Section 7(1) (a) (i) and not under  Section 7(1)(a)(ii) as contended by the appellants.  In fact, before the High Court  same was the stand taken by the present respondents. The High Court  unfortunately referred to Section 7(1)(a)(ii).  According to him the order of the  High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.  

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

We find that the High Court has categorically noted the submissions of the  present respondents that the maximum sentence for an offence punishable under  Section 7(1) (a) (ii) is 1 year.  What is presently being contended by the present  respondents is at variance with what appears to have been contended before the  High Court.   

Section 7(1) of the Act reads as follows :                 "7(1) If any person contravenes any order made under section 3, -  (a)       he shall be punishable, - (i)     in the case of an order made with reference to clause (h)  or clause (i) of sub-section (2) of that section, with  imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year  and shall also be liable to fine, and

(ii)    in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a  term which shall not be less than three months but  which may extend to seven years and shall also be  liable to fine:

*provided that the court may, for any adequate and  special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment,  impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less  than three months;

(b)     any property in respect of which the order has been  contravened shall be forfeited to the Government;

(c)     any package, covering or receptacle in which the  property is found and any animal, vehicle, vessel or  other conveyance used in carrying the commodity shall,  if the court so orders, be forfeited to the Government."

       It cannot be disputed and is not disputed by learned counsel for the  respondent that the maximum sentence for an offence relatable to Section  7(1)(b)(ii) is not one year.  That being so the High Court’s order necessarily has  to be set aside.  Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the arguments  before the High Court revolved around Section 7(1)(b)(i) of the Act, and a fresh  petition shall be filed. If it is filed, it goes without saying, the same shall be dealt  with and disposed of in accordance with law.

Appeal is allowed.