M/S ZUARI INDUSTRIES LTD AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAH

2026:BHC-AUG:45643
                                                   -1-
                                                                   APPLN-3505-2009

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3505 OF 2009
              1.     M/s. Zuari Industries Ltd.,
                     Zuari Nagar, Goa, Through its
                     Chief Manager, Marketing and authorized person,
                     Shri Deelip S/o Shankarrao Chavhan,
                     Age : 48 years, Occu. : Service,
                     Residing at Adalat Road, Aurangabad.

              2.     Mr. C. L. N. Rao,
                     M/s. Zuari Industries Ltd.,
                     Zuari Nagar, Goa.                           … Applicants
                                                             (Orig. Accused Nos.3 and 4)
                          Versus

                    The State of Maharashtra
                    Through The Fertilizer Inspector,
                    Kannad.                                      … Respondent
                                              ..…
              Mr. Hemant Surve, Advocate for Applicants.
              Mr. S. V. Hange, APP for Respondent – State.
                                              .....

                                           CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                   RESERVED ON : 21st SEPTEMBER 2026
                                PRONOUNCED ON : 30th SEPTEMBER 2026

              JUDGMENT :


              1.     The applicants, who are accused Nos. 3 and 4 in Regular

              Criminal Case No. 250 of 2006 pending before the Judicial

              Magistrate First Class, Kannad, seek quashing of the complaint and

              the proceedings against them. The complaint alleges contravention

              of clauses 13 and 19 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985

              punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act,

              1955.
                                 -2-
                                                      APPLN-3505-2009

2.    The Prosecution case as narrated in the Private Complaint

states that , On 5th July, 2005, the Fertiliser Inspector inspected

the premises of M/s. Ganesh Krushi Seva Kendra at Kannad and

drew a sample from its stock of Single Super Phosphate powder,

batch P-22. The bags identified M/s. Liberty Phosphate Ltd. as the

manufacturer. The report of the Fertiliser Testing Laboratory

dated 22nd July, 2005 declared the sample to be below the

prescribed standard. The complaint names the dealer and its

proprietor as accused Nos.1 and 2, the present applicants as

accused Nos. 3 and 4, and Liberty Phosphate Ltd. as accused No. 5.

It alleges, in particular, that applicant No.1 supplied the fertilizer

to the dealer through the marketing arrangement.



3.    Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that Liberty

Phosphate Ltd. manufactured the product and that the applicants

merely marketed it. He pointed to the manufacturer’s name and

batch number recorded during inspection and submitted that no

tampering with the bags was recorded. He contended that a defect

in manufacture cannot be attributed to a marketer or its officer.

Reliance was placed on the decision of the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. v.

State of Haryana and Anr. in CRM-M-42904 of 2013, decided on

24th February, 2014 and the case of M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. v.
                                 -3-
                                                      APPLN-3505-2009

State of Punjab in CRM-M-14123 of 2016 (O & M), decided on 19 th

April, 2024.



4.    Learned    Additional    Public   Prosecutor     opposed    the

application. The State’s affidavit accepts that the applicants did not

manufacture the fertilizer but maintains that applicant No.1

promoted and distributed it and is answerable for its sale.

According to the State, clause 19(a) of the above referred Control

Order extends to those activities.



5.    The submission of the Learned counsel for the Applicants

that only a manufacturer can contravene clause 19(a) of the

Control Order cannot be accepted. Besides manufacture, that

clause expressly covers selling, offering for sale, stocking or

exhibiting for sale, and distributing fertilizer which is not of the

prescribed standard. The absence of a separate definition of

“marketer”also does not exempt a person whose alleged conduct

falls within one of those express terms. Nor does clause 13 of the

Control Order, which concerns manufacture of mixtures can

determine the distinct allegation made under clause 19(a) of the

Control Order.



6.    The decisions cited by the applicants have also been

considered by me. The judgments do not lay down a legal situation
                                 -4-
                                                      APPLN-3505-2009

that warrants quashing of a complaint which expressly alleges sale

or distribution by the company without examining the evidence.

The invoice and other documents relied upon by the applicants,

and the significance of the condition in which the bags were found,

may be tested at trial. At this stage the Court cannot resolve the

disputed supply arrangement or assess the likelihood of conviction.

The analytical report also cannot be treated as a finding of guilt

against any accused merely because it records a non-standard

sample. The governing question is whether the complaint, taken at

face value, discloses the alleged contravention against each

applicant. In my view against the applicant No.1, it does.



7.   As far as Applicant No.2 is concern, he stands on a different

footing. The complaint identifies him by name as an officer

associated with Zuari but does not state what part he took in the

alleged sale or distribution. It does not aver that, when the alleged

contravention occurred, he oversaw and was responsible to the

company for the conduct of its business. Nor does it attribute to

him consent, connivance or neglect in relation to the alleged

contravention. His designation or association with the company

cannot, by itself, supply those missing allegations for the purpose

of section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act. Continuation of the

proceedings against him on the complaint as framed would
                                   -5-
                                                        APPLN-3505-2009

therefore be an abuse of process of law and in my opinion deserves

to be quashed and set aside against the Applicant no.2.



8.        Lastly, considering that the complaint concerns a sample

drawn in 2005 and has remained pending for approximately

twenty years. The record also shows that further proceedings

before the Magistrate were stayed during the pendency of this

application. The passage of time thus calls for an early trial of the

remaining accused. Hence, the following order :



                                    ORDER

     a)       The application is therefore partly allowed.


     b)       Regular Criminal Case No.250 of 2006 and all
              consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside
              only insofar as    applicant No.2 - Shri C. L. N. Rao
              (original accused No. 4).


     c)       The prayer to quash the proceedings against applicant
              No.1 - M/s. Zuari Industries Ltd. (original accused No.
              3) is rejected.


     d)       Any interim stay of the proceedings before the
              Magistrate stands vacated.


     e)       The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kannad shall take
              up   the    case   against   the   remaining    accused
              expeditiously and endeavour to conclude it within six
                                    -6-
                                                         APPLN-3505-2009

               months of receipt of this order, subject to their lawful
               opportunity to defend themselves.


          f)   The Magistrate shall decide the case independently on
               the evidence led by the parties, uninfluenced by the
               prima facie observations in this order.


          g)   Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.




                                          (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
                                                 JUDGE




Tandale