STATE OF A.P. versus FARMERS SERVICE COOP. SOCIETY AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 580 · Decided: 16-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF A.P. 
v. 
FARMERS SERVICE COOP. SOCIETY AND ORS. 
AUGUST 16, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Essential Commodities Act, 1955-Section (l)(a)(i) : 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482 : 
Criminal proceedings-Petition for quashing-Allegation that 
maximum punishment for offence uls. 7(/)(a)(ii) alleged in the complaint 
being 1 year, the same barred by limitation as complaint filed after 2 
years-Proceedings quashed by High Court-On appeal, held : Since it 
D could not have been disputed that the punishment uls. 7(J)(a)(ii) is not 1 
year and since the plea of the accused was that their arguments in High 
Court related to Section 7(1)(a)(i), order of High Court set aside with 
direction to file fresh petition. 
E 
Respondents filed petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of 
proceedings against them in the Court of Magistrate on the ground 
that the maximum punishment for offence punishable u/s. 7(1)(a)(ii) of 
Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the violation of which was alleged in 
the complaint, is one year and therefore, the charge-sheet which was 
F filed about two years after the date of offence was barred by limitation. 
High Court quashed the proceedings on this ground. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, appellant-State contended that proceedings 
could not be quashed as the maximum punishment under Section is 7 
years and not 1 year. 
Respondents contended that the accusations in the complaint 
related to Section 7(1)(a)(i) and not to Section 7(1)(a)(ii); that High 
Court had wrongly referred to Section 7(1)(a)(ii). 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
580 
STATE v. FARMERS SERVICE COOP. SOCY. [PASAYAT, J.] 
581 
HELD: High Court has categorically noted the submissions of the A 
respondents that the maximum sentence for an offence punishable 
under Section 7(l)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is I year. 
It cannot be disputed and is not disputed by the respondent that the 
maximum sentence for an offence relatable to Section 7(l)(a)(ii) is not 
one year. That being so the High Court's order has to be set aside. If a B 
fresh petition is filed in High Court by the respondents, the same shall 
be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with law. [582-F; 583-E-G) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
887 of 2004. 
~ 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.2.2002 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in Cr!. P. No. 3977 of 2001. 
Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy for the Appellant. 
c 
A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujan, Mrs. Gouri Karuna Das, Ms. Anu Gupta, D 
S.C. Gupta, Ms. Debjani Das Purkarstherya, Ajay Pandey and Ms. Rani 
Jethmalani for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
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: 
E 
F 
On 24th July, 1998 the Fertilizer Inspector inspected the premises of 
Respondent No. 1 - Society, which was dealing in the business of 
fertilizers. He collected samples of Zinc Sulphate and sent the same for G 
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 H 
582 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 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 Cr!. Petition 
No. 3977 of2001. The primary stand was that the maximum punishment, 
B provided for an offence punishable under Section 7(l)(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 
C the proceedings in the CC No. 453/2000 on the file,of Judicial Magistrate, 
First Class were quashed. 
According to the learned counsel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.