Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s. Adinath Agro Industries and its manager Ishan Jain, were accused nos. 4 and 5 in Regular Criminal Case No. 34 of 2017 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raver, District Jalgaon. The case arose from a complaint filed by Sidhanath Sadhu Kalel, an Agriculture Extension Officer, who claimed to be appointed as an Inspector under Clause 27 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, by a State Government notification dated 13.10.2010. On 19.07.2016, he inspected the godown of M/s. Kranti Traders (accused no.1) and collected samples of a mixed fertilizer (Calcium:Magnesium:Sulphur 10:5:10) manufactured by the petitioners. The samples were sent for analysis and were found to be misbranded/substandard. The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 227 read with Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the criminal case. The main legal issue was whether the complainant was validly appointed as an Inspector under Clause 27 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. The petitioners argued that the appointment must be by notification by the Central Government, not the State Government. The court examined Clause 27 and found that it requires the Central Government to appoint Inspectors by notification. Since the complainant's appointment was notified by the State Government, it was invalid. The court held that the complaint filed by a person not validly appointed as an Inspector is not maintainable, and the criminal proceedings are an abuse of process. The court quashed the criminal case against the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 - Appointment of Inspector - Clause 27 - The appointment of an Inspector under Clause 27 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 must be made by notification by the Central Government. The State Government's notification dated 13.10.2010 appointing the complainant as Inspector is invalid as it does not comply with the requirement of notification by the Central Government. Consequently, the complaint filed by such person is not maintainable and the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. (Paras 4-6) B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Inherent Powers - Where the complaint is filed by a person not duly authorized under the relevant statute, the proceedings are an abuse of process of law and can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court can exercise its inherent powers to prevent miscarriage of justice. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complaint filed by the Agriculture Extension Officer was maintainable when his appointment as Inspector under Clause 27 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 was notified by the State Government and not by the Central Government as required under the Order.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition and quashed Regular Criminal Case No. 34 of 2017 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raver, District Jalgaon, against the petitioners (accused nos.4 and 5).
Law Points
- Appointment of Inspector under Clause 27 of Fertilizer (Control) Order
- 1985 must be by notification by Central Government
- not State Government
- Complaint filed by person not validly appointed as Inspector is not maintainable
- Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC for lack of sanction
