“2. There is no dispute that the Chief Agricultural Officer who has been examined as PW-1 visited the shop of the appellants on 27.06.1984 and took the sample of the fertilizer. The case of the prosecution is that the fertilizer is substandard and it does not contain the total Nitrogen and Amonical Nitrogen as prescribed standard. The report of the Analytical chemist in the Fertilizer Control Laboratory in Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana was marked Ex. PC. According to P.6, the Analytical Chemist who examined the sample, the total Nitrogen was 24.5% against 25% and Anomical Nitrogen contents were 11.5% in total nitrogen and 1% in Anomical Nitrogen. The said variation appears to be negligible. According to PW.6 has not given the permissible limit of the variation in respect of Amonical Nitrogen. Thus, the variation appears to be negligible. Apart from that, the fertilizer was purchased admittedly by the appellants from National Fertilizer Limited, Nangal. His evidence also shows that the fertilizer had been purchased by the appellants from National Fertilizer Limited, Nangal. The evidence of DW.1 also further shows that if there is any manufacturing defect, the responsibility lies on the National Fertilizers Limited, Nangal as the bags are stitched with automatic machines. Further, the evidence of PW.2 who was the Enforcement Inspector, who was also present at the time of taking sample from the shop of the appellants, also deposed
