No Prima Facie Case Against Marketing Company and Regional Manager for Sealed Fertilizer Bags; Liability Solely on Manufacturer For Defective Seeds – Punjab and Haryana High Court Quash Proceedings
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings against M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. and their Regional Manager. The complaint alleged violations under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, pertaining to the marketing and manufacturing of substandard fertilizers.
Legal Point:
The legal crux of the judgment focused on the responsibilities and liabilities concerning the marketing and selling of fertilizers under sealed conditions. The court examined whether the marketing company and its Regional Manager could be held liable for the contents of sealed, unadulterated fertilizer bags, leading to a detailed interpretation of Sections 19(a)(c) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and related provisions of the Essential Commodities Act.
Factual Background and Issues:
The case originated from an inspection by the Fertilizer Inspector in Jalalabad, leading to allegations of substandard zinc sulphate fertilizer being sold by M/s R.K. Pesticides. Samples taken from sealed bags were found to slightly deviate from prescribed standards. Subsequent legal proceedings targeted not only the manufacturer but also the marketing chain, including M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. and their Regional Manager, challenging their culpability for the product’s alleged substandard quality.
Detailed Court Assessment:
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi noted that the fertilizer bags were sealed at the time of sampling, with no evidence of tampering or improper handling. Citing precedents, the judgment highlighted that without any manipulative actions by the marketers contributing to the substandard quality, their liability does not arise. The judge underscored:
“In cases where the product’s non-compliance with standards originates solely from manufacturing defects, liability should justifiably rest with the manufacturer alone.”
The court also referenced previous judgments where marketers were not held liable under similar circumstances, reinforcing the principle that unless there is evidence of tampering or involvement in the manufacturing process by the sellers, their criminal liability does not arise.
Decision: The court concluded that continuing the proceedings against M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. and the Regional Manager would constitute an abuse of process, as they were neither the manufacturers nor had they engaged in any wrongful acts affecting the product’s standard. Consequently, all charges against them were quashed.
Date of Decision: April 19, 2024
M/S Tata Chemicals Ltd and Another vs. State of Punjab
