ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.)THIS petition seeks quashing of FIR No. 102 dated 15.9.1998 registered at Police Station City, Mansa (Annexure P.1) under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Rule 19(1) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 (for short, the Control Order).
(2.)IN the said FIR, it is alleged that on 19.12.1994, Fertilizer Inspector inspected the premises of M/s. Shivalik Sales Agencies, Mansa and took a sample of fertilizer and divided the same in three portions. One of the portions was sent for chemical analysis and vide report dated 18.1.1995 sample was found to be nonstandard as it contained only 9.22% P205 actual ingredient contents instead of 16%. The FIR was registered on the basis of letter from Chief Agricultural Officer dated 11.10.1995. It appears that FIR was not registered immediately on account of issue of validity of the Control Order being pending in this court and a Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 16.9.1996 struck down Clause 19 of the Control Order on the ground that there was no provision in the said Order for second analysis. The said view of the learned Single Judge was over-ruled by a Division Bench vide judgment dated 29.7.1997 reported the The Director Agriculture, Punjab and others v. M/s. Gurmukh Mal Shibba Mal, 1997(4) Recent Criminal Reports 780. The Division Bench held that though accused had not been given a right of seeking second analysis done, he had right under Section 293(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in exercise of which he could cross-examine the expert who had given the report and also had right to examine another expert or to rely upon some celebrated authority on law and as a last resort could make out a case of the Court to send the third sample for its analysis by another laboratory. The said view was also affirmed by a Full Bench of this Court [2000(4) RCR(Cri.) 526] which has been affirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1465 of 2001, A.S. Parmar v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 27.8.2002.
Present petition was filed at a time when matter was pending consideration before a Full Bench of this Court and further proceedings were stayed on the ground that the matter was pending before the Full Bench. Since the question of validity of the Control Order no longer survives, counsel for the petitioners contended that the proceedings were liable to be quashed on account of delay in registering the FIR and that petitioners were merely dealers and liability for adulteration can be fastened only on the manufacturer. Reliance was placed on judgment in Shiv Dayal and others v. The State of Punjab, Criminal Misc. No. 31914 of 2000 decided on 22.9.2000. It was also submitted that respondent No. 2 had not been notified as Controller under Clause 3(e) of the Control Order and on that ground also, prosecution of the petitioners was barred.

(3.)COUNSEL for the State opposed the prayer for quashing and submitted that delay was on account of pendency of issue of validity of the Control Order in this Court and cannot be a ground for quashing. It was also submitted that there was nothing to show that respondent No. 2 had not been notified as Controller and even if that was so, no prejudice is shown to other petitioner nor it is shown as to how validity of prosecution is affected.