State Of U.P. Prin. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. vs. M/S Govind Industries Rajapur Lakhimpur Khiri Thru. Director Manish Kumar Gupta

Held

The Court held that the appellate court committed an illegality by releasing the sub-standard fertilizers, misinterpreting the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report as indicating the samples were standard when 12 were found sub-standard. The Court set aside the appellate court's order regarding the release of sub-standard samples, stating it was not applicable to them. However, the Court agreed with the appellate court's decision to release the remaining articles seized that were not related to fertilizer production, finding the seizure of such general goods by the agricultural team to be bad in law. The Court noted that Section 23(1) of the Act applies only to sub-standard fertilizers, and the agricultural team was not competent to seize general goods. Therefore, the revision was partly allowed.

Facts

The State of U.P. filed a criminal revision against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge allowing the release of seized goods belonging to M/s Govind Industries. The goods were seized following an inspection that revealed adulterated chemical fertilizer and duplicate wrappers. The State contended that the opposite party lacked a license for the seized goods and was manufacturing adulterated fertilizers in contravention of the Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1985, and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The State highlighted that 12 out of 23 collected samples were found to be sub-standard, a fact allegedly not considered by the appellate court. The opposite party argued they possessed a license for micro-nutrient fertilizers and that many seized items were unrelated to fertilizer production. They also claimed their business was severely impacted, leading to financial distress.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate court erred in allowing the release of seized goods, including sub-standard fertilizers, without properly considering the forensic laboratory reports and relevant provisions of law? 2. Whether the seizure of goods unrelated to fertilizer production was lawful? Contentions of the State: The State argued that the Additional Sessions Judge committed a manifest error by allowing the release of seized goods, particularly the sub-standard fertilizers, without discussing the contravention of Clause 12 and Clause 13(1)(a,b,c) of the Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1985, and Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. They relied on Rule 23(1)(c) of the Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1985, which stipulates that non-standard fertilizers can only be sold to specific entities like research farms. The State contended that releasing sub-standard fertilizers would cause irreparable loss. Contentions of the Opposite Party: The opposite party asserted that they had a license for manufacturing micro-nutrient fertilizers and that many seized items, such as stationery and furniture, were unrelated to fertilizer production. They claimed that the inspection team forcibly obtained signatures and seized items not used by the industry. They also pointed out that the FIR had not yet led to a charge sheet and that the seizure had crippled their business, leading to bank notices. They argued that seized goods unrelated to fertilizers should be released.