1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 103 CRA-S-541-SB-2004 (O&M) Date of decision : 02.09.2026 Rajinder Singh ..... Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent 103-II CRA-S-542-SB-2004 (O&M) M/s Kishori Lal Vishwa Nath & Ors. ..... Appellants VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Jugansh Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate for the appellants. Appeal (CRA-S-542-SB-2004) qua appellant No.2 stands abated, vide order dated 04.11.2015. Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG Punjab. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. Since both the appeals are emanating from the same judgment and the issues involved therein are identical, the same are being disposed of, by a common judgment. 2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that pursuant to a complaint filed by Sh. Narinder Singh Rurka, Chief Agricultural Officer, Kapurthala, alleging the commission of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12AA of ‘Essential Commodities Act 1955’ read with GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 Clauses 19 and 21 of ‘Fertilizer Control Order, 1985’, a trial was conducted in the Court of learned Special Judge Kapurthala, which culminated into judgment of conviction of all the appellants, vide judgment dated 28.02.2004. 3. Once the appellants were held guilty and convicted for the commission of abovementioned offences, by virtue of order on the quantum of sentence of even date, following sentences were awarded to the appellants: Convicts Offence under Sections Sentence M/s Kishori Lal Vishwa Nath 7 of Essential Commodities Act Pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. Vishwa Nath 7 of Essential Commodities Act Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Rakesh Kumar 7 of Essential Commodities Act Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Rajinder Kumar 7 of Essential Commodities Act Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Parveen Kumar 7 of Essential Commodities Act Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. M/s Shivalik Fertilizer Ltd. 7 of Essential Commodities Act Pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. Rajinder Singh 7 of Essential Commodities Act Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 4. Aggrieved of the above-mentioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, two appeals have been preferred. The appeal at Serial No.1 in the title of this judgment, i.e. CRA-S-541-SB-2004, has been filed by the convict, namely ‘Rajinder Singh’, and second appeal, i.e. CRA-S- 542-SB-2004, by the firm, namely ‘M/s Kishori Lal Vishwa Nath’ and its partners. All of them are hereinafter being referred to as ‘appellants’ only 5. It shall not be out of place to mention here that the abovementioned complaint was filed against eight accused, including three firms. In the complaint, ‘M/s Sat Paul Vijay Kumar’, Kapurthala through proprietor ‘Parveen Kumar’, has been arrayed as accused No.5. However, no judgment of conviction has been passed against the above-named firm. Remaining two firms, which were implicated as accused, were ‘M/s Kishori Lal Vishwa Nath’ and ‘M/s Shivalik Fertilizer Ltd.’. Both the abovementioned firms have been held guilty and convicted, accordingly. 6. In nutshell, the facts emerging from record are that the complaint was filed with the allegations that ‘M/s Kishori Lal Vishwa Nath, VPO Kala Sanghian, Tehsil & District. Kapurthala’ (accused No.1), is an authorized dealer of fertilizer, of the manufacturing company ‘M/s Shivalik Fertilizer Ltd, VPO Rail Majra, District Ropar’ (accused No.7) through its authorized whole sale dealer, ‘M/s Sat Paul Vijay Kumar, New Grain Market, Kapurthala’ (accused No.5). As per complaint, on 22.11.1995, ‘Balwinder Singh’, Fertilizer Inspector, along with ‘Baldev Singh’, Agricultural Development Officer, Kapurthala, visited the premises of ‘M/s GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Kishori Lal Vishwa Nath’ (accused No.1). At that time, ‘Rakesh Kumar’, accused No.3, partner of the firm, was present there. According to complaint, ‘Balwinder Singh’ disclosed his identity to ‘Rakesh Kumar’ as Fertilizer Inspector, Kapurthala, and gave a notice showing his intention to take fertilizer for analysis under the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, which was received by ‘Rakesh Kumar’, who signed it along with the firm’s seal impression ‘KLVN’. 7. According to complaint, thereafter the Fertilizer Inspector inspected the dealer's registration and stock register in respect of Single Super Phosphate 16% P2O5 (Powder) Brand Basant Super, manufactured by ‘M/s Shivalik Fertilizer Ltd.’ (accused No.7). According to the stock register, there were 76 bags (50 kg fertilizer each), received by the firm on 17.10.1993. The Fertilizer Inspector signed page No.16 of the stock register and on checking, it was found that lot numbers and dates of manufacturing were not mentioned on the bags. 8. As per complaint, ‘Balwinder Singh’ prepared the sampling details in duplicate in Form-J in the presence of accused ‘Rakesh Kumar’ and Agricultural Development Officer ‘Baldev Singh’, both of whom signed Form-J. One copy of Form-J was handed over to ‘Rakesh Kumar’ and two bags (bearing No.15 and 53) were selected at random from the stock, lying in the premises of ‘M/s Kishori Lal Vishwa Nath’. According to complaint, a sampling probe was inserted diagonally from one corner to another in those selected bags, and the fertilizer collected was put on a clean, dry GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 polythene sheet, mixed properly, and divided into four equal parts. As per complaint, two diagonally opposite parts were removed, and the remaining parts were mixed together to form a composite sample of 1.500 kgs. 9. According to complaint, the composite sample was spread on a dry, clean, thick polythene sheet and divided into three equal parts of equal weight. As per complaint, each sample portion was placed into dry, clean, thick polythene bags and tied air-tight. Four detailed description-slips as specified in Form-J, and three Form-K, prescribed under Clause 30(1) of the Order, were filled in the presence of ‘Rakesh Kumar’ and ‘Baldev Singh’, Agricultural Development Officer, who signed Form-J. As per complaint, thereafter, each sample polythene bag along with the detailed description in Form-J was put into a cloth bag and sealed with the seal bearing impression ‘FI/II/3/KPT’. ‘Rakesh Kumar’ affixed his seal impression ‘KLVN’ on Forms-J and K and on the three sample portions. According to complaint, the Fertilizer Inspector marked serial No.1/ADO(E) on the cloth bags as an identification mark. As per complaint, once the abovesaid process was complete, one sample portion was given to ‘Rakesh Kumar’ against his signature on Form-J. 10. It was further alleged that on the same day, Fertilizer Inspector ‘Balwinder Singh’ brought the remaining sample portions and forms to the office of the Chief Agricultural Officer, Kapurthala, entered them into the sample register, and allotted Code No.85(E) on 25.11.1993. According to complaint, one portion of the sample along with Form-K was sent to the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 ‘Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Punjab, Ludhiana’ vide letter dated 25.11.1993 through ‘Raj Kumar, Beldar’, who deposited it, obtained a receipt on the office copy, and handed it over to ‘Balwinder Singh’, the Fertilizer Inspector. As per complaint, the Analytical Chemist (Incharge), Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Punjab, Ludhiana, sent the analysis report declaring that the sample was not according to specifications and therefore, it was non-standard. It was also mentioned in the complaint that at the time of examination by Analytical Chemist the seals were intact and the samples were not tampered. 11. Once the report of Analytical Chemist was received, as per procedure show cause notices were issued, wherein it was stated that ‘M/s Kishori Lal Vishwa Nath’ (accused No.1), a partnership firm, ‘Vishwa Nath’ (accused No.2), ‘Rakesh Kumar’ (accused No.3), ‘Rajinder Kumar’ (accused No.4), who were the partners and incharge of the abovementioned firm, and therefore, responsible for the conduct of business. Thus, being dealers, they were liable for keeping non-standard fertilizers for sale. ‘M/s Sat Pal Vijay Kumar through its sole proprietor Parveen Kumar’ being whole seller of the said fertilizer, had supplied the same to ‘M/s Shivalik Fertilizer Ltd.’ (accused No.7) and ‘Rajinder Singh’ (accused No.8). Thus, the abovesaid firm was responsible for the conduct of business of the abovesaid firm. 12. According to complaint, when the abovementioned formalities were complete, for the contravention of Clause-19 of the Order, Punishable GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 under Section-7 of Essential Commodities Act 1995, the complaint in question was filed. Once the complaint was filed the learned Special Judge Kapurthala observed that there was sufficient ground to take cognizance on the complaint. Thus, the appellants were summoned to face trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section-7 of Essential Commodities Act 1995. Once the appellants appeared before the Court, they were subjected to trial, which culminated into their conviction, vide order dated 28.02.2004. 13. Heard. 14. While assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are the offspring of improper appreciation of evidence and non-application of judicial mind. According to learned counsel for the appellants, an error of judgment has been committed by the learned trial Court, while holding the appellants guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section-7 of Essential Commodities Act, and awarding sentence to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years. The learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that evidence adduced by the prosecution for proving the charge was not reliable and good enough to discharge the burden of the prosecution as per law. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 15. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the inconsistencies and deficiencies in the prosecution evidence were so grave that this inference should not have been drawn that the prosecution has been successful in proving charge against the accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. While claiming that merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises, the learned trial Court has held the appellants guilty for the commission of abovementioned offence, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned judgment of conviction is not sustainable. 16. However, the learned counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments have come forward with a plea that at this stage, when the appellants, who are facing the agony of protracted trial for more than 30 years, are not inclined to press the appeals with regard to judgment of conviction. As per learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants do not want to assail the judgment of conviction and want to press appeals with regard to order on the point of quantum of sentence, only. 17. The learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that in the present case, the sentence of two years has been awarded to the appellants. As per learned counsel for the appellants, with regard to abovementioned conviction, it is relevant to note here that the appellants are not the previous convict and even after the abovementioned alleged offence they have not indulged in any kind of criminal activity. In view of above, the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 learned counsel for the appellants has claimed that the appellants are entitled to benefit of probation of good conduct. 18. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the observations recorded by this Court in various judicial pronouncements. In one of such case, the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of ‘State of Punjab Vs. Manohar Lal, 1982(1) CLR 415, while dealing with an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, in a case pertaining to commission of offence under Section-7 of Essential Commodities Act, accorded the benefit of probation to the respondent- accused. 19. Similarly in the case of ‘Satinder Singh Vs. Punjab State’, 2003(4) RCR (Criminal) 616, the appellant ‘Satinder Singh’ was convicted for the commission of offence under Section-7 of ‘Essential Commodities Act’ by the learned Special Judge, designated under ‘the Essential Commodities Act’. While dealing with appeal arising out of abovementioned judgment, the benefit of probation was accorded to the appellant ‘Satinder Singh’. The similar view was taken by this Court in the case of ‘Rajender Vs. State of Haryana’ 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 910 and ‘State of Punjab Vs. Arun Kumar’, 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 254. 20. In the case of ‘Vijay Singh Vs. State of Haryana’, 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 703, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section-7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955, by the learned Special Judge under GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 Essential Commodities Act. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of four years. However, by considering the fact that the appellant had already faced the agony of protracted trial for a period of 13 years and that he was first offender, the benefit of probation was afforded to him by this Court. 21. Similar views were taken by this Court in the case of ‘M/s Shiva Sales and others Vs. State of Punjab’ 2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 819 and ‘M/s Vishnu Trading and others Vs. State of Punjab’, Criminal Appeal No.S-436-SB of 2004 and also in the case of ‘M/s Kanshi Ram Mehar Chand and others Vs. State of Punjab’, Criminal Appeal No.S-358-SB of 2003. 22. The abovementioned arguments have been controverted by the learned State Counsel. It has been contended by the learned State Counsel that in the present case, there are very specific and categorical allegations against the appellants, with regard to commission of offence punishable under Section-7 of ‘Essential Commodities Act 1955’ read with Section- 12AA of Essential Commodities Act, read with Clauses 19 and 21 of ‘Fertilizer Control Order, 1985’. As per learned State Counsel, each and every formalities right from the very beginning, i.e. collection of sample, till the filing of complaint, were meticulously completed by the complainant in accordance with laid down procedure, and that charge against the appellants were duly proved, with the help of reliable evidence, beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 23. As per learned State Counsel, in view of large-scale implications of the action of the appellants, which could have resulted into permanent damage to the crops, the gravity of the offence is much more than the gravity being projected by learned counsel for the appellants. As per learned State Counsel, in view of peculiar facts of this case, the appellants are not entitled to a lenient view. According to learned State Counsel, the present appeal is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal. 24. The record has been perused carefully. 25. After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and the relevant law, it transpires that: i) that the agony of trial and appeal is being faced by the appellants for a period of more than 30 years; ii) that admittedly the appellants at the time of commission of alleged offence were first offender. iii) that there is nothing on record to show that after the prosecution in the present case, there has been any other prosecution of the appellants; iv) that the punishment awarded to the appellants is two years and otherwise also under Section-7 read with Section 12AA of Essential of Commodities Act, provides for the maximum punishment up to seven years. 26. Following the precedents discussed above, and taking into consideration the abovementioned factors, it is hereby observed that the ends GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12 of justice would be better served, if the benefit of probation is accorded to the appellants and they are released on probation of good conduct. In my considered opinion, in the given fact situation, instead of awarding sentence to undergo imprisonment for the period fixed by the learned trial Court, it shall be more appropriate that the appellants are given the benefit of probation of good behaviour, mandated by Section-360 of CrPC. 27. Accordingly, it is hereby held that by upholding the judgment of conviction of the appellants, for the charge framed against them, it shall be appropriate that all the appellants are released on probation of good conduct on their furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. 28. With the abovementioned observations, the instant appeals with regard to judgment of conviction are hereby dismissed and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court is hereby upheld. 29 However, the instant appeals are partly allowed with regard to order on quantum of sentence and the same is hereby modified to the extent that the appellants shall be released on probation for a period of one year on furnishing requisite bonds before the learned trial Court. The appellants shall undertake to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for a period of one year. In case of default with regard to terms & conditions of probation order, the appellants shall receive sentence as and when called upon to do so. It is GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13 however, made clear that the abovementioned probation shall be without supervision of Probationary Officer. 30. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 02.09.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.03 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document