Judgment : Petitioners have been shown as A-2 and A-3 in S.T.R.No. 63 of 1990, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Erode. In the same complaint, Manickasundaram, Proprietor, Sri Balamurugan Agro Agencies, Sivagiri, has been shown as A-1. First Petitioner is a company and the second petitioner is the Senior Production Executive, Seed Processing Unit of the first petitioner. A-1 to A-3 are being prosecuted, on a private complaint instituted by the respondent, who is the Seed Inspector, Erode, alleging that they had contravened Sccs.7(b) read with 6(a) of the Seeds Act, 1966 punishable under Sec. 19(a)(i) and Sec. 21 of the same Act. 2. Averments in the complaint show that the respondent visited the shop of A-1,on 28. 1989 and in his presence took three samples of notified paddy seed, IR 20 (labelled seed) weighing 700 gms., each from the stock kept for sale, for the purpose of analysis. One sample was delivered to A-1under his acknowledgement. Another sample was sent to Seed Analyst, Coimbatore, for his report. Third sample was retained by the respondent. Report of the Seed Analyst dated 9. 1989 revealed that the sample seed, had only 58% germination, as against the minimum required germination of 80% notified by the Government of India. Further probe revealed that the first petitioner had sold the sampleseed to A-1 as per sales delivery note Sl.No. SD 0276, dated 18. 1989. First petitioner was also informed, by the respondent, about the production of substandard seeds. 3. The instant prosecution was instituted on 1. 1990. For the first time, petitioners received summons from the trial Magistrate on 5. 1990 requiring their presence before him on 5. 1990. In between Deputy Director, Seeds, Coimbatore had forwarded a communication dated 12. 1989 to the first petitioner, wherein he has requested information about the persons incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. .4. Soon after appearance before the Magistrate, on 15. 1990 petitioners filed an application under Sec. 16(2) of the Seeds Act, pleading for forwarding of the samples in the possession of the respondent, to the Central Seed Laboratory, stating that the report of the Seed Analyst, Coimbatore, was erroneous. Learned Magistrate on 15. 1990 directed the Seed Inspector, Erode to produce the sample concerned before court to facilitate forwarding of the same to the Central Seed Laboratory, as requested by the petitioners. Learned Magistrate on 15. 1990 directed the Seed Inspector, Erode to produce the sample concerned before court to facilitate forwarding of the same to the Central Seed Laboratory, as requested by the petitioners. Inspite of the aforestated directions issued by the Magistrate, third sample was not produced before the Magistrate and naturally it was not possible for the Magistrate to comply with the request made by the petitioners. A second application was filed by the petitioners on 17. 1990, before the same Magistrate, pointing out, that the viability of the seed was only for a period of eight months from the date of production, since seeds were living materials, and still the complainant had not obeyed the orders of the court and produced the sample for forwarding of the same, to the Central Seed Laboratory. It was also pointed out in the second application that a valuable right afforded by law to the petitioners was sought to be thwarted, by inaction of the respondent. Though the concerned Assistant Public Prosecutor took notice of the second application, still nothing further happened. It is under those circumstances that the petitioners had chosen to invoke the inherent powers of this Court to have the pending prosecution quashed. 5. Mr.C.A. Sundaram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the foundation of this prosecution, as far as the petitioners are concerned, even on the averments made in the complaint, is clear, that they have been categorised as vendors of the seeds to A-1. It makes no difference if A-1 is the vendor from whom sample was obtained for, according to the respondent, petitioners are the prima vendors of the seed example. Vendors have a right under Sec.16(2) of the Act to have the third sample analysed by the Central Seed Laboratory. Central Seed Laboratory will have to send its report in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the sample from the Magistrate, specifying the result of the analysis. Under Sec. 16(3) of the Act, report sent by the Central Seed Laboratory under Sub-sec.(2) shall supersede the "report given by the Seed Analyst under Sub-sec.(1). He also pointed out, that even according to the certification of seeds, issued by the State, such certification is valid upto eight months from the date of test, provided the seed is stored under ideal conditions. He also pointed out, that even according to the certification of seeds, issued by the State, such certification is valid upto eight months from the date of test, provided the seed is stored under ideal conditions. Use of seed after the expiry of validity period by anyone, was entirely at his risk. The contention was, if the prosecuting agency had failed to produce a living seed for the purpose of a second analysis, for several months and thereby seek to negate the right for such analysis, afforded by law, to the petitioners impugned prosecution cannot be allowed to survive any longer. 6. On these contentions, I have heard Mr.S. Shanmughavelayudham, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He pointed out that the application for second analysis was preferred nine months after seizure and if such application was belated, there will be no purpose in blaming the prosecuting agency for non-production of the seed, before the Magistrate, in time. He also pointed out, that the petitioners can be prosecuted even if non-vendors, under Sec.7 of the Seeds Act. .7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by either counsel. The submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor overlooks, that the right given to the petitioners under Sec. 16(2) of the Act, commences only after the institution, of a prosecution under this Act. There is no dispute that for the first time petitioners became aware of the instant prosecution only on 5. 1990 intimating 5. 1990 as the first hearing date. After engaging a counsel, petitioners had promptly preferred an application under Sec. 16(2) of the Act even on 15. 1990. Inspite of the order passed by the learned Magistrate even on 15. 1990, the respondent had neglected to produce the third sample of seed with him, before the Magistrate. Not only the respondent had not complied with the directions of the Magistrate, but had also made it impossible for the petitioners to exercise a valuable right, afforded to them bylaw. It was submitted, with some hesitation, by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that the seeds are still available and they can be produced in court. At the same time, it was also represented by the State, that according to certification of seeds, their life is only for about eight months. Prosecution cannot blow hot and cold. It was submitted, with some hesitation, by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that the seeds are still available and they can be produced in court. At the same time, it was also represented by the State, that according to certification of seeds, their life is only for about eight months. Prosecution cannot blow hot and cold. Once Sec.16(2) of the Act prescribes a time limit for the Analyst to forward his report, it is easily possible to comprehend, that quick action will have to be taken at every stage for, living organism will have to be protected carefully and rights made available by law either to the prosecution or the accused, should not be allowed to be lost due to avoidable delays. Analysis now, after 5 years, can serve no purpose. I am satisfied that the valuable right conferred by law, on the petitioners, had been made non-exercisable, only due to the ineptitude, carelessness and negligence of the respondent. If this prosecution has to fail, the blame squarely falls on the respondent to because he has not only derelicted his duty, but had also failed to obey the directions of the trial Magistrate. 8. This is not one of those cases, where a technical point has been sought to be urged, without taking proper steps to exercise the right guaranteed under law before the Magistrate. Petitioners had moved the Magistrate to exercise their right of second analysis, but since orders were not forthcoming, due to frustration, that a valuable remedy may be lost, they had chosen to approach this Court. I have no hesitation whatever in holding, that on the aforestated facts, petitioners arc bound to succeed. The impugned prosecution, insofar as it concerns these two petitioners, shall stand quashed. This petition is allowed.