Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 823 (KAR)

V. CHANDRU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2001-11-08

S.R.BANNURMATH

body2001
S. R. BANNURMATH, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. challenging the initiation of proceedings in Spl. Case No. 101/2001 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysore, as well as quashing the entire proceedings. ( 2 ) THE brief facts necessary for consideration are as follows :the petitioner No. 1 is the proprietor of Monsoon Agro Centre, Piriyapattan, dealing in seeds. The petitioner No. 2 is the distributor of Akshaya Agro Sales Ltd. , who has supplied the seeds to the first petitioner. The petitioner No. 3 is the Managing Director of Kaveri Seeds Company (P.) Ltd. , Secunderabad, which Company procures the seeds and distributes for sale through various distributors like petitioner No. 2. ( 3 ) ON an inspection held on 31-8-98 by the Complainant-Seeds Inspector of the shop of petitioner No. 1, suspecting that certain seeds were sub-standard, the same were seized by the complainant. After following the due procedure as prescribed under the Seeds Act, 1966, by dividing the samples from such seeds taken, into three parts, one was given to the accused-petitioner No. 1, another retained by the complainant and the third was sent to the Seed Testing Laboratory at Hebbal, Bangalore. According to the complainant, on 19-9-1998, he received the report showing that the seeds so seized and sample tested were sub-standard, accordingly, a notice was issued to the accused. Thereafter, on 6-6-2001, as the act of petitioner No. 1 was in contravention of the provisions of the Act and liable to be criminally prosecuted and punished u/s. 19 of the Act, the complaint u/s. 200, Cr. P. C. came to be lodged. On receipt of the complaint, the learned Judge took cognizance against the accused for the offence u/s. 19, read with Ss. 6 and 7 of the Seeds Act and issued process. As against the same, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the correctness and validity of launching of prosecution itself. ( 4 ) SRI Kulkarni, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the complaint filed by the respondent is liable to be quashed at the initial stage itself as the same is barred by Limitation Act. Elaborating the same, it is contended that as the punishment prescribed for the offence in question is only a fine which may extend to Rs. Elaborating the same, it is contended that as the punishment prescribed for the offence in question is only a fine which may extend to Rs. 500/- and in the case of second and later offences imprisonment would be up to six months or fine which may extend to Rs. 1000/-, the limitation to file the complaint would be six months as per Sec. 468, Cr. P. C. It is contended that admittedly the sample was seized on 31-8-98 and even if the report date is taken as the starting period which is 19-9-98, the prosecution ought to have been launched within six months from thereof and as in the present case, since the complaint is launched after more than two years, the same is barred by limitation. ( 5 ) NEXTLY, it is contended that the prosecution is also liable to be quashed on the ground of delay and laches and thereby depriving the petitioners of their defence. In this regard, taking me through the provisions of the Act, it is contended that the report of the Local Seeds Testing Laboratory is not a final report. According to Sec. 16 of the Act, there is an opportunity provided to the accused to seek permission of the Court by way of an application to get the seeds re-tested from the Central Seeds Testing Laboratory and this report as per Cl. 3 of Sec. 16 becomes final report. As such, it is submitted that as the present prosecution and the dates mentioned above indicate that the report of the Local Seeds Testing Laboratory is received on 19-9-1998, it was mandatorily required for the prosecuting agency or the complainant to lodge the complaint expeditiously so that the accused could get the report of the Local Seeds Testing Laboratory verified and re-checked through the Central Seeds Testing Laboratory. It is contended that as per the standard fixed by the Indian Seeds Minimum Certification Manual, the validity of the Certificate is being nine months, which can be extended to a maximum period thereof by six months. Thereby only fifteen months at the most is taken as the shelf life of the seed. If such seeds are thereafter not tested, its value is lost. Hence it is submitted that once the certificate or the report is received on 19-9-98, before expiry of six months thereof, the prosecution ought to have been launched. Thereby only fifteen months at the most is taken as the shelf life of the seed. If such seeds are thereafter not tested, its value is lost. Hence it is submitted that once the certificate or the report is received on 19-9-98, before expiry of six months thereof, the prosecution ought to have been launched. In the present case filing of complaint and issue of process after about 2 years, an opportunity to defend by way of getting the seeds re-tested and confirm the report of the Local Seeds Testing Laboratory through the Central Seeds Testing Laboratory is lost to the accused. Hence on this count also, the prosecution of the accused-petitioners is liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, Sri Prakash, the learned Addl. SPP argued in support of the correctness of the proceedings initiated. ( 7 ) INSOFAR as the question of limitation is concerned particularly for the offence arising under the Seeds Act, in the case of Shailaja v. State, in Crl. P. No. 2743/2001, dated 13-9-2001 (reported in 2002 Cri LJ 761) (Kant), this Court has elaborately considered this aspect as to what is the starting point of limitation as per Sec. 19 of the Act. Since the punishment for the first offenders for contravention of the provisions of the Act concerned is only fine and even in respect of second and later offence by the same accused, the same being maximum of six months and fine of maximum of Rs. 1000/- the limitation to file complaint as per Sec. 468, Cr. P. C. is six months. There is absolutely no material at this stage to show prima facie that the petitioners are habitual offenders under the Act. As such, it is to be treated as the petitioners are the first offenders and in that case the maximum punishments awardable is only a fine. In view of this maximum punishment, as per Sec. 468, Cl. 2 (a) of Cr. P. C. , the period of limitation would be six months. In the aforesaid pronouncements of this Court, it is held that the date of report or receipt of the report that would give the cause of action and that is the starting point for the limitation. 2 (a) of Cr. P. C. , the period of limitation would be six months. In the aforesaid pronouncements of this Court, it is held that the date of report or receipt of the report that would give the cause of action and that is the starting point for the limitation. Admittedly, in the present case, the report as per the complainant itself was received on 19-9-1998 and since the complaint is not filed within six months thereof and in fact has been filed beyond two years, the prosecution is beyond the period of limitation and on this count itself, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. ( 8 ) NEXTLY, it is to be seen that the report of the Local Seeds Testing Laboratory is not final and conclusive so as to hold the petitioners guilty of contravention of the provisions of the Act. U/s. 16 (2) of the Act, after filing of a complaint and issue of process, an opportunity is available to the accused to challenge the report by way of making an application to the Court for seeking the sample to the Central Seeds Laboratory for re-testing or re-checking the veracity of the report of local laboratory and as per Cl. 3 of the Act, this report of the Central Seeds Testing Laboratory supersedes the report of the Local Seeds Testing Laboratory. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Indian Seeds Minimum Certification Manual itself prescribes the validity period of such certificates is nine months and as is not much in dispute, the shelf-life of seeds is taken as nine months. Any prosecution has to be filed within that period of nine months. If it is not done, then, opportunity of challenging and rebutting the Local Seeds Testing Laboratory by submitting the seeds beyond the said nine months to the Central Seeds Testing Laboratory would be lost. As such, the basic right of the accused to defend himself by proving the correctness or otherwise of the Local Seeds Testing Laboratory report is taken away or made nugatory by launching the prosecution beyond this period of nine months. Since the right to defend is one of the fundamental rights and if such rights are taken away by delay or laches on the part of the prosecuting agency, the prosecution becomes illegal. Since the right to defend is one of the fundamental rights and if such rights are taken away by delay or laches on the part of the prosecuting agency, the prosecution becomes illegal. Hence, in my view as the prosecution has been filed on 6-6-2001, that is almost after a period of two years from the date of report, thereby negating the right of the accused to get the seeds tested as the shelf-life itself has already expired, the prosecution has to be quashed on this count also. In this regard, the observation of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid (P.) Ltd. , reported in 1999 SCC (Cri) 1404 : (2000 AIR SCW 1985) : (2000 Cri LJ 2962) is worth noting. "if the expiry date of the sample was not relevant, there was no reason why in the form prescribed for submission of the report by the Insecticide Analyst, the dates of manufacture of the article and the expiry date are mentioned. Section 30 provides for defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecution under the Act. Section 30 (1) only prescribes in effect that ignorance would be no defence but that does not mean that if there are contraventions of other mandatory provisions of the Act, the accused have no remedy. The procedure for testing the sample is prescribed and if it is contravened to the prejudice of the accused, he certainly has the right to seek dismissal of the complaint. Then in order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory, it is incumbent on the prosecution to file the complaint expeditiously so that the right of the accused is not lost. In the present case, by the time the respondents were asked to appear before the Court, the expiry date of the Insecticide was already over and sending of the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory at that late stage would be of no consequence. Therefore, in view of Sections 24 (3) and 24 (4) of the Insecticides Act the report of the Insecticides Analyst was not conclusive. A valuable right had been conferred on the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and in the circumstances of the case the accused have been deprived of that right, thus, prejudicing them in their defence. A valuable right had been conferred on the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and in the circumstances of the case the accused have been deprived of that right, thus, prejudicing them in their defence. In these circumstances, the High Court was right in concluding that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court if the prosecution was continued against the accused persons. The High Court rightly quashed the criminal complaint. "though the case with which the Apex Court was dealing arises from the Insecticides Act, the principles laid down in the said pronouncement are clearly attracted to this case also as the provisions of both Acts are on par with each other regarding this aspect. Hence the second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that because of delay and laches, prejudice is caused to his case and thereby the valuable right to defend has been taken away, has to be accepted. ( 9 ) IN the result, it is to be held that the present prosecution is barred by limitation as well as in contravention of the mandatory provisions including the fundamental rights of the accused of giving opportunity to defend has been taken away. The petition is allowed and the proceedings in Session Case No. 101/2001 are hereby quashed. ( 10 ) BEFORE closing, it is to be observed that this country is an agricultural based one and quality seeds are essence for growing the good crop, the authority under the Seeds Act are empowered to take action against erring seeds sellers. If real culprits are not tried and convicted for the negligence of such officials and even Court by filing complaint beyond period of limitation, it will be a major loss to poor agriculturists who purchase such seeds for cultivation. ( 11 ) HENCE, copy of this order be sent to concerned Ministry/law Department and all the Courts to take right and appropriate steps in this regard. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .