Holding

A court where sub‑standard fertilizer is marketed has jurisdiction to try the manufacturer of such fertilizer, even if the manufacturing takes place elsewhere, pursuant to Sections 179 and 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Summary

The State of Punjab prosecuted Nohar Chand, a fertilizer manufacturer in Ludhiana, for producing sub‑standard fertilizer that was marketed through his agent, Sachdeva Enterprises, in Kapurthala. A sample taken from the agent’s premises was found sub‑standard, leading to a criminal complaint under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Fertilizers Control Order, 1957. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court in Kapurthala, where the marketing occurred, had jurisdiction to try the manufacturer whose manufacturing activity was elsewhere, under Sections 179 and 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that the court where the consequences of the offence (marketing) manifested has jurisdiction to try both the dealer and the manufacturer, even if the manufacturing took place at a different location. Consequently, the High Court’s order setting aside the Additional Sessions Judge’s decision was quashed, the appeal was allowed, and the lower court’s order was restored.

Issues considered

Whether a court where sub‑standard fertilizer is marketed has jurisdiction to try the manufacturer whose manufacturing activity occurs at a different place under CrPC Sections 179 and 180.
Whether manufacturing and marketing of sub‑standard fertilizer constitute distinct offences that can be tried together in a single jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 179, s. 180
Essential Commodities Act, 1955s. 13(1)(a)
Fertilizers Control Order, 1957s. 12(1)(a)
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

Subjects

jurisdictionsub‑standard fertilizermanufacturingmarketingCrPCSection 179Section 180Essential Commodities ActFertilizers Control Ordercriminal procedure

Judgment

•

STATE OF PUNJAB A
v.
NOHAR CHAND

May 17, 1984

{D.A. DESAI AND AMARiNDRANATH SEN, JJ.]
.. TerritoriQi Juris4ic1io1,- of the Crlminal cOUrt, wltether the Court where
sub~standard fertiliser War found be marketed will have the jurisdiction tO take,
cognizanceDnd try the manufacturer of ·sub.-Standard fertilizer, ·even if th~
fnanufacliµ-ing- activiiy is _a't an entirely different pltice- and -under different court c
illrisdiction along with the marketing agent-Codi of Criminal frocedure, 1973
"<Act. II of 1974), sections 179 and 180, scope of.

The respondent was ca~ryiogon business of ·m~nufactUring· fertilizers
at Ltidhiana under the name and- stYie' of MeSsrs Variader Agro-Cbemical_s
(India}- :ind ~arketcd his proudct through his' age"nt Messrs S1chdeva
D.
Enterprises.KapU:rtha·la. Ori finding the sample collected by a ·FertiiiZer;
Inspector fr9m the said agent on Decernbe~ ti~ 1978-to'be of sub-stand<trd,
quiliity the Chief -A.gricultur-al Officer. Kapurtliala filed a .-crimirial com ...
plaint being CC No. 156-C of 1980 on December 2·4, 1980 in the Court of
the Chief Judicial Magistfate, K.apurthala against the. two partners .of
Messrs· SaChdeva Enterprises and th-e Respolld_ent under ·s. -1 'lA. of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with s. 13(1) (a) of the Fertilizers E
Control Ord~r. 19.57. On. July 20,. 198 l respondent ,moved rut application.
-before tb_e trial court~raying that he be dischlrged and·the proceedings be
dropped against him on the ground that the KapurthalaCourt Md no
territorial Jurisdiction tO try him because he ca;r.ied on .:·business of manu·
facturc of-fertilizers at Ludhiana. Relyi_ng on the _decision -Or the G_ujarat
0

High. Court in .state of Gujarat v. Agro-Chemicals etc. (1980 cr:L. J: p.
5J6), the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged the respondent and.
dropped the proceedings (Jgainst him. The Criminal Jlevn, Application No.
F
48 of 1981.filed by the Stat<> of Punjab was allowed by the Additional
· Se_ssions Judge; Kapurthafa hotdillg. that-in Vie.w of the pro,visions of Section.·
180 of the Code of C:rimina! Procodure, the Kapurthala Court bad jurisdic·
tion to. try the respondent along with the o'ther coaccused. Thereupon the
respondent preferred a revision petition being Cr!.. Miac. No. 1473 M of
G
1982 "in the High Court >f Punjab and Haryana. A learned Single Judge of
the High Court relying on the decision of that Court in Satinder Singh and.
OrS.' vo Staie of Punjab," Cr!. Misc. Appia. No. IISB·M/19$1 dated
· 24·2;1982 which. accepted the view t.akeu by. the Gujarat High Cuurt,.
alloWed t:he revision petition and set·aside the 4eC1sion Qf. ·the AdditiQnal
Se»ions Judge. Hence the State Appea\ by SpeciaLLeave of the Court.
H
A Jl~wing the appeaJ, t.he Court
•

840 SUPREME <;,OUR! Rl!'ORTS (1984]3 s.c.R.

A J{ELO·.: 1. The CoUft in whose jurisdiction sub-standard fertilizer
was found to be maketed will ha~e.the.jurisdiCtiOn ·to try· manufacturer of
sub.standafd .feMflizer even if the rn_anufacniring activity is at 3.n entireIY
· different. pJace. The manufact'uref is. well as t~e. dealer can be tried at a
piace where .the conseqlJ-ences of the manufacturing and selling· of sOb·
standard fertilizer had ensued as envisiged in ss. 179 and L80 of the .Code·
of Cri.minal Procedure. {843C-D]
B . .
. -. .· . .
·1 :·2._Now if·niaufactu~'ing sub-standard fertilizer· is l)y itself an
Offence . and marketing the suh·Jitaiidard fertilizer is _itself-.a-dis_tioct offence
bllt they are So inter· connected 'as cau:. e and effect, both can be tried at. One-
or tbe other place. If one_inanufactur·es'thc sub-standa.i;,d ferfilizer, wherever
it is marketed the inter-relation' or' c·asua:t ·connection ii or' cause aad effect.
The situa\ion ;._,ill be adequately covered bys;,: 17'9 and '180 of the Code of
c .Criminal Procedure. [8430-H]
. .
JnChargs Production, Harydna State Coopt. Supply And Market· ·
\.
ing [1ederation Lid. (HAFE IJ) Fertilizer v.. State. of Punjab; Crl:
·Misc. No. 676.3. M of 1982 decided by the High Court on
9·3·1983 approved,

1 .: 3. \vh.·en ·a samPle o.f _fertilize~ js taken ·from a·. bag Which was io
the _same ·cooditiOn as dCliv.erc~by the m3.Dufacturcr and. it Was ln po_ssess.ion
··of a markett'n·g· agent manufacture .and sale of -sub-standard fertilizer would
· constitute indiSptitably ·one .tran$aCtion.·- But this . is predicated upon thC
facts which may be disclosed in the trial and proved. [844D·E)
.~
E I
Su~p. s.C:R 30, distinguished.
..
Bhagwan Das Jagdish Chander v. · Delhi. Administration

.

. CRIMINAf. APPELLATE J1jRJSDICTJON: Criminal Appeal No .. 247
[l975]

of 1984.
F
Appea1 by Special leave from the Judgment apd Order dated
~
the· 28th July, 1982 of th.e Punjab and Haryana High Court in
\ '
Criminal Misc. No. J472-M/82:

· K.C. Dua and S.K. Bagga forllie Appellant.'
G
Frank Anthony and Su~hil Kumar for the Respondent.
•
. '1.be Ju~gment of the C~urt was delivered. by

DllsAI, J. Special leave granted.
ff
One Nohar Chand; the respondent herein, was carrying on
,'
...
'

.
PUNJAB v. NOHAR CHAND (Desai; J.)
. . . .
b11.5iness of manufacluring fertilisers at Ludhiana under the name ,and
841

style of Mis Varinder Agrpc-Chemicals (lndia). On,e inspe,cwr
designated as Fertillscr. Inspector visited the premises of M/s
Sachdeva Enterprises, Kapnrtha[a ('agent' for short) on De,cember
, 12, 1978 and obtained ·a sample of the fertiliser manufactured by
Nohar Chand .which was being marketed by the agent. The sample
was obt~ined for the purpose· of al)alysis to, ascertain whether it B
conformed to the prescribed standard: On analysis it was foupd to
be sub-standard,. The Chief Agricultural Officer, Kapurthala filed a
criminal com plaint being CC. No., 156-C of 19.80 on December24,
1980. in the Court of the Chief Judicial :Magistrate, Kapurthala
against the two pariners of M/s Sachdeva Enterprises, one Raj
Shetty and respondent Nohar Chand Gupta, the manufacturer of c
sub-standard fertiliseruis 13-A cf the Essential Commodities Act, '
'1955°read, with Section l 2(l}(a), ofthc Fertilisers Control Order,
" -)
1957. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the charge
, again sfall the accused for the afore, mentioned offence:, ·on July ·20, ,
1981 respondent Nohar, Chand iuoved an application before the . D
Jearned Magistrate praying thathe,be discharged andthe proceedings
be dropped against him on the ground t]Jat the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala had no territoriiil jurisdiction to try
him because he carried on business of manufacture of fertilisers at
, Ludhiana. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, following the ·
decision of the Gujarat High Court in St'ate ,of Gujarat v, Agro- E
I Chem/cals e!c,,( 1) discharged the respondent and dropped the, procee-
dings against him,., The State of Punjab preferred Criminal Revision
Application No, 48 of 1981 in the Court C!f the learned Additional
Sessfons Judge, Kapurfhala who by his judgment,and order dated
February 13, 1982 set aside the order of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate holding that in view of the provisions contained'in Section F
180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court of ihe Chief
Judiclal Magistrate, Kapurthala had jurisdiction to try the respon·
,; . de,nt along with the other co-accused. Thereupon Jhe respondent
pteferred a revision p :tition being Criminal Misc,, No. 1473-M of
1982 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. A learned Single
Judge of the High Court held th'at in view of ,the decision in Satinder
Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab< 2> which accepted the view"taken
, by the Gujarat High Court, the learned ,Additional Sessions Judge
was in error in interfering with the order of the learned Chief Judi-
cial· Magistrate and that the Couri of the Chief Judicial ,Magi~trate, ,

(!) 19so'criminal LawJournaI 5i6. , H
q)'
. Cr!. Misc.
.
Applicati9n
..
No. ll58·M of 1981 da1ed 24.2.1982.
,.
-ii,'

SUPRm.ill coURt iuli>oilts [1984) 3 s.c.tt.
A K,.apurthal!i. had no jurisdiction t~ try Nohar Chand, the manufac·
mrer._ Accllrdingly the revision applicai'O)l was allowed and the
d~1swn ·of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was. set aside and
' ihe one by·the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was restored. Hence
this appeal by special leave.

B
· The allegation against the resportdent was that he manufac-
tured sub,standard fertiliser and. through his marketing agents M/s
Sachdeva Enterprises, Kapurthala marketed the same. The offence
was discl.osed when the Fertiliser ll}spector took a sample of the sul:J-
standard fertiliser from the marketing agents at Kapurthala. It is an
c admitted position · 1#,at the respondent who 'is the manufacturer ·
, . carries on-his bussiness of manufactuiing fertilisers at Ludhiana. Th~
question· posed is : • whether the Court of Chief Judicia! Magistrate,
Kapurthala where the l)larketlng agents of sul:J-staudard fertiliser
manufactured by the respondent marketed· the same, wi)l have.
jurisdiction to try .the: respondent; the manufacturer ·of the sub·
·n standard fertiliser
. along with the marketing
. agents. , .. · · I-

The learned Single Judge of the ·High Court following the
deeision in Satinder Singh's case held ihat the .1nanufacturer•of
sub"standard fertiliser cannot be tried where the commodity was
being marketed The view taken l:\y the High Court with. respect is
E wholly ·untenable in law. But before examining the legal position .· .
subsequent dev~lopn1ertt of law in the sa1ue High Cou'rt on this very
point may be .noticed. ·

To begin with, let it be pointed out that the decision.agai~st
which the present appeal is being heard was quoted bef<;>re another .
F . learned ·Single Judgv of the same High Court and as the.learned
Sin°gle Judge had grave doubt abo:J.tthe correctness of the -view taken.
by the learned.Judge in this case, he referred the matter for ay.thori,
·tative pronouncement. to a larger bench ofthe same High Court.
This referred matter : Incharge· Production, Haryana State Co- r'
. operative. Supply and Marketitig Fedtration Ltd. (HAFED.) Fertilizer. \ _,
G v. Swte of Punjab(l) chme up for hearing· before a Division _Bench
. of the High Court. 1he Division Bencl;t referred to the deci.sion
. rendered by the learned S)ngle Judge in this case., and clearly . '

· · disapproved it and in terms overruled it, Simultaneously it also.·
overruled.the de:ision· in Satiiuler Singh's case which the· learned
• Judge had followed in this case. 'It can be safe(y said. that the lirger
H
.----·~--~
(I) Criminal Misc. No. 6763-M of 19.82 dated 9.3.83.
-::._
PUNJAB v; NOHAR CIIAND (Desai, J.) 843

bench of the High Court has disapproved the view taken by the A
learhed Judge in this case.

The respondent, the manufacturer of the sub-standard fertiliser
is. to be tried alongwith those who marketed the sub-standard
fertiliser manufactured by him as his agents. The question iS whether .B
the court where the sub-standard fertiliser i) marketed would have
jurisdiction to try the manufacturer of. the sub-standard fertiliser
whose. manufacturing activity is at a different pla~e. This very .
argument was posed before the Division Bench ot the High Court.
The High Court after referring to Secti.ons 179 and 180 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 held that the court where sub-sta.ndard ·C
fe~iliser was found to be marketed wili have the jurisdiption to try
the manufacturer of sub-standard fertiliser even if the manufacturing
activity is at an entirely different place. The Division Bench held
that the manufacturer ·as well as. the dealer can be tried· at .a plac.e
where the consequences .of the manufacturing and selling of sub·
standard fertiliser had ensue·d as envisaged in Sections 179 and 180 ·.o
of the Code of C~iminal Procedure. That in our opinion (appears to
be the correct view in law.
'
Section 179 prnvides that when an act is an offence; by reason
of anything which has been <jone and of a consequence which has E
~-. ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within
' whose local jurisdiction· such thing bas been done 'or ·such conse·
quence has ensued. Section 180 provides .that where irn act is an
offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an
offence or which wot\ld be an offence if the doer were capable . of
committing· an offence, the first-mentioned offence may be inquired " F
into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction either act was
done .
...)
) .
.
. . .
Now if manufacturing sub-standard fertiliser is by itself an
·offence and marketing the sub-standard fertiliser is ·itself a distinct
offence but they are so-inter-connected as cause and eff;ct, .both can G
be tried at one or the other place. If one manu.factures the sub-
standard fertiliser, wherever it is marketed the inter-relation or
casual connection is of cause. and effect.· The situation will be
adequately covered by Secs. 179 and 180 of the Code of Criminal
t Procedure. We are in agreement with the later decision of Jhe
H
Division Bench rendered on March 9, 1983 that the court where the
sub-standard fertiliser is being marketed will ~qually have the
•
•
J

844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 3 S.C.R.

A jurisdicil0n to try the manufacturer of sub-standard fertiliser. 1 his
is so obvious that any further discussion appears to us to t>e
superfluous.

Mr. Frank Amhouy, learned counsel who appeared for the·
respondent urged that the concurring decision of Alagiriswami, J. in
B
Bhagwandas Jagdish Chander v. Delhi Administration( I) would clearly
show that the manuiacture of an adulterated article of food and i.,.
selling the same c,annot be said to be part· and parcel of the same t '
transaction and that unless therefore the complaint shows that the
sample of fe.rtiliser was taken from a bag of fertiliser as delivered by

.
,C the manufacturer, it is. distinctly possible that adulteration may have
taken.. place on a subsequent occasion and therefore one cannot infer
~ '

manufacture of sub-standard fertiliser from it being so marketed
when the sample was taken from the marketing agency. This
approach overlooks the fact that the trial is yet to be held. One can

D
envisage two situations. When a sample of fertiliser is taken from a
bag which was in the same condition as delivered by the manufac-
' -'

turer and it was in possession of a marketing agent manufacture and
sale of sub-standard fertiliser would constitute. indisputably one
. transaction. But this is predicated upon the facts which may be
disclosed in the trial and proved. In Bhag~andas Jagdish (:hander's
case, the allegation was that the appellant before the court sold ghee
E to a v~ndor which was on analysis · found io be adulterated
ahd both were jointly tried under ~ection 7 read with Sec. 16 of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In the course of trial,
the purchaser of ghee wanted warrantor to be discharged so that he
· can be examined as a defence witness to prove his own purchase of
the offending article. This application was granted and the warrantor·
was acquitted. After the acquittal of the warrantor, the learned
Magistrate impleaded the manufacturer Mr. Gauri Shanker Prem
Narain .under section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954. An appeal was preferred by the· Municipal Corporation
' ~ !!
of Delhi against the ":cquittal of the warrantor and the other accused. \ _l,.

The High Court maintained the acquittal of Lakshmi Narain but set
G.
aside the acq~itial of warrantor. That i.s how the matter came up to
this Court.· We fail to see how this decision· can at all help the
respondent in this' case. However, reliance was placed· on one
observation in the' concurring judgment of Alagiriswami, J. which
reads as under :
H
(!) (1975) Suppl. SCR 30 •

• •
PUNJAB v. NOHAR CHAND (Desai, J.) 845

"It would b.e noticed that while the charge states that
. the sample of ghee purchased from Lakshmi Narain was
found to be adulterated, there i_s no allegation that the ghee
sold by the appellant to Lakshmi Narain was adulterated.
While it may be readily conceded that the common object
or common intention or unity of purpose. between the
· manufacturer, the distributor and the vendor was tq sell the B
~
article of fMd sold, it is not said that 1t was to sell the
; I
adulteraiedi>rticle of foo.d."
•
At a later stage, it is observed that 'the validity of th~ charge has (o
be decided oo the facts put forward as the prosecution case. If' it is c
not established against anyone of them that, the article ·of food
manufactured, distributed or sold by him was adulterated that person
will be acquitted, not because the charge was not valid or was
defective but because there was no proof to substantiate the. charge.
But without that allegation there canuot be said t.o be ·a unity of D
purpose or common object or common intention on the part of all
of them who manufactur~, distribute or sell the adulterated food.' It
was further observed that "the manufacture, distribution and sale Of
adulterated ghee would be the same transaciion if it was found to be
adulterated at all the three stages. Otherwise it only means that they
were all same transaction only in the sense that the common object E
of all ofthem is the selling of the ghee.'' How the extracted_ observa-
tion in any way helps the respondent passes comprehension. Firstly,
the question of jurisdiction of the court trying the offender was
never raised in that case. l}nd,here the respondent was discharged
pn the ground of want of jurisdiction. Secondly, the decision
proceeded on the facts of the case as would be evident. from the . F
extracted passage which recites the charge. That aspect does not
fii:ure in this case. Let it be made clear that no affidavit was filed on
• behalf of the respondent in this Court, nor the complaint was read
over to us. And the case proceeds on ~he averments not presently
disputed. · Therefore in this case we are left·with the allegations as
found in the judgment of the High Court and the learned Additional G
Sessions Judge and it clearly establishes that where the . marketing.
agent of the manufacturer of· fertiliser which is found to be sub·
standard is being. prosocuted
. .for marketing sub-standard fertiliser '
the manufacturec can be tried with him and the court where the sub·
·standard fetiliser was marketed will have jurisdiction to try them
both. · H
...
846 SUPREME COURT REl'ORTS [1984] 3 S.C.R.

"Therefore the High Court was in error iu setting aside the
order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. This was the only
point in this appeal and as it clearly transpired that the High Court
was in error· in interfering with the order of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the ·High
Collrt is· quashed and set aside and the judgment of the learned
B Additional Sessions Judg<; is restored.

i '

S.R.
• Appeal allowe~ ,•

+-

I
••

J
•
. '

.
._;._