LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus NOHAR CHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
..
•
STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
NOHAR CHAND
May 17, 1984
{D.A. DESAI AND AMARiNDRANATH SEN, JJ.]
TerritoriQi Juris4ic1io1,- of the Crlminal cOUrt, wltether the Court where
sub~standard fertiliser War found be marketed will have the jurisdiction tO take,
cognizanceDnd try the manufacturer of ·sub.-Standard fertilizer, ·even if th~
fnanufacliµ-ing- activiiy is _a't an entirely different pltice- and -under different court
illrisdiction along with the marketing agent-Codi of Criminal frocedure, 1973
"<Act. II of 1974), sections 179 and 180, scope of.
The respondent was ca~ryiogon business of ·m~nufactUring· fertilizers
at Ltidhiana under the name and- stYie' of MeSsrs Variader Agro-Cbemical_s
(India}- :ind
~arketcd his proudct through
his' age"nt Messrs S1chdeva
Enterprises.KapU:rtha·la. Ori finding the sample collected by a ·FertiiiZer;
Inspector fr9m the said agent on Decernbe~ ti~ 1978-to'be of sub-stand<trd,
quiliity the Chief -A.gricultur-al Officer. Kapurtliala filed a .-crimirial com ...
plaint being CC No. 156-C of 1980 on December 2·4, 1980 in the Court of
the Chief Judicial Magistfate, K.apurthala against the. two partners .of
Messrs· SaChdeva Enterprises and th-e Respolld_ent under ·s. -1 'lA. of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with s. 13(1) (a) of the Fertilizers
Control
Ord~r. 19.57. On. July 20,. 198 l respondent ,moved rut application.
-before tb_e trial court~raying that he be dischlrged and·the proceedings be
dropped against him on the ground that the KapurthalaCourt Md no
territorial Jurisdiction tO try him because he ca;r.ied on .:·business of manu·
facturc of-fertilizers at Ludhiana.
Relyi_ng on the _decision -Or the G_ujarat
High. Court in .state of Gujarat v. Agro-Chemicals etc.
0(1980 cr:L. J: p.
5J6), the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged the respondent and.
dropped the proceedings (Jgainst him. The Criminal Jlevn, Application No.
48 of 1981.filed by the Stat<> of Punjab was allowed by the Additional
· Se_ssions Judge; Kapurthafa hotdillg. that-in Vie.w of the pro,visions of Section.·
180 of the Code of C:rimina! Procodure, the Kapurthala Court bad jurisdic·
tion to. try the respondent along with the o'ther coaccused. Thereupon the
respondent preferred a revision petition being Cr!.. Miac. No. 1473 M of
1982 "in the High Court >f Punjab and Haryana. A learned Single Judge of
the High Court relying on the decision of that Court in Satinder Singh and.
OrS.' vo Staie of Punjab," Cr!. Misc. Appia. No. IISB·M/19$1 dated
· 24·2;1982 which. accepted the view t.akeu by. the Gujarat High Cuurt,.
alloWed t:he revision petition and set·aside the 4eC1sion Qf. ·the AdditiQnal
Se»ions Judge. Hence the State Appea\ by SpeciaLLeave of the Court.
A Jl~wing the appeaJ, t.he Court
A
c
D.
E
F
G
H
•
840
SUPREME <;,OUR! Rl!'ORTS
(1984]3 s.c.R.
A
B
c
E
F
G
ff
J{ELO·.: 1. The CoUft in whose jurisdiction sub-standard fertilizer
was found to be maketed will ha~e.the.jurisdiCtiOn ·to try· manufacturer of
sub.standafd .feMflizer even if the rn_anufacniring activity is at 3.n entireIY
· different. pJace. The manufact'uref is. well as t~e. dealer can be tried at a
piace where .the conseqlJ-ences of
the manufacturing and selling· of sOb·
standard fertilizer had ensued as envisiged in ss. 179 and L80 of the .Code·
of Cri.minal Procedure.
{843C-D]
.
.
. -.
.·
.
.
·1 :·2._Now if·niaufactu~'ing sub-standard fertilizer· is l)y itself
an
Offence .. and marketing the suh·Jitaiidard fertilizer is _itself-.a-dis_tioct offence
bllt they are So inter· connected 'as cau:. e and effect, both can be tried at. One-
or tbe other place. If one_inanufactur·es'thc sub-standa.i;,d ferfilizer, wherever
it is marketed the inter-relation' or' c·asua:t ·connection ii or' cause aad effect.
The situa\ion ;._,ill be adequately covered bys;,: 17'9 and '180 of the Code of
.Criminal Procedure.
[8430-H]
.
.
JnChargs Production, Harydna State Coopt. Supply And Market· ·
ing [1ederation Lid. (HAFE IJ) Fertilizer v .. State. of Punjab; Crl:
·Misc. No. 676.3. M of 1982 decided by the High Court on
9·3·1983 approved,
1 .: 3. \vh.·en ·a samPle o.f _fertilize~ js taken ·from a·. bag Which was io
the _same ·cooditiOn as dCliv.erc~by the m3.Dufacturcr and. it Was ln po_ssess.ion
··of a markett'n·g· agent manufacture .and sale of -sub-standard fertilizer would
· constitute indiSptitably ·one . tran$aCtion.·- But this . is predicated upon thC
facts which may bExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.