STATE OF A.P.versusFARMERS SERVICE COOP. SOCIETY AND ORS.

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

                              AUGUST 16, 2004
B
                [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.]

         Essential Commodities Act, 1955-Section (l)(a)(i) :

         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482 :
c
         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.

         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.
G
         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.
                     ~
                                                                          c
    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.

     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.
                                                                          E

     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.       F
     Background facts in nutshell are as follows:

       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 for the appellant the High Court has
  fallen into grave error by holding that the maximum punishment for an
D 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
E   7(1) (a) (i) and not under Section 7(l)(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(l)(a)(ii).
    According to him the order of the High Court does not suffer from any
    infirmity to warrant interference.

F        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 I year. What is presently being
    contended by the present respondents is at variance with what appears to
    have been contended before the High Court.
G
          Section 7(1) of the Act reads as follows :

              "7(1) If any person contravenes any order made under
              section 3, -

H             (a)   he shall be punishable, -
     STATE v. FARMERS SERVICE COOP. SOCY. [PASAYAT, J.]               583

              (i)   in the case of an order made with reference to clause A
                    (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
                                                                         B
                   which may extend to seven years and shall also be
                   liable to fine:

                    *provided that the court may, for any adeqµate and
                    special reasons to be .mentioned in the judgment,       c
                    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;
                                                                            D
              (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."                                         E
      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 )(a)(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 F
the arguments before the High Court revolved around Section 7(l)(a)(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.                                                     G
K.K.T.                                                    Appeal allowed.