JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 68/2009 (347/2008) pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nohar, District Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 6, 7 and 19 of the seeds Act. 3. The principle contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis whereof the proceedings of the complaint have been assailed is that the mandatory procedure prescribed for sampling of the seeds has not been followed in this case and therefore, the proceedings of the complaint are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the complaint filed in this case by the Seed Inspector cum Agriculture Officer, submitted that as per the admitted fact mentioned in the complaint, the samples of the seeds were simply packed in the cloth bags and sent to the laboratory for analysis. He, therefore, contends that the mandatory procedure prescribed in the Seeds Act and Rules was not followed. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Gauri Shanker & Ors. v. State reported in 2011(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1685 , learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings are liable to be quashed as the mandatory procedure of sampling has not been adhered to. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the fact that the procedure of taking samples of the seed as prescribed under the Act has not been followed in this case. 5. The relevant portion of the complaint filed in this case is quoted as below: " bl izdkj mijksDrkuqlkj js.Me iz.kkyh }kjk izkbejh uewus fy;s x;sA ,d gh fdLe ,oa ykWV ds js.Me iz.kkyh }kjk fy;s x;s leLr izkbZejh uewuksa dks feykdj ,d dEiksftV uewuk rS;kj fd;k x;kA dEiksftV uewus ds rhu cjkcj Hkkx fd;s x;s ,oa izR;sd Hkkx dks vyx&vyx rhu diM+s dh FkSfy;ksa esa Hkjk x;k ,oa izR;sd FkSyh esa 160 xzke cht dh ek=k Hkjh xbZA FkSfy;k esa izi= V j[k dj /kkxs }kjk FkSfy;k dk eqag cUn fd;k vkSj piM+h }kjk lqfHkUdkdjh ( czkWl ) lhy yxkdj FkSfy;ksa dks lhy fd;k x;kA FkSfy;ksa dks piM+h }kjk lhy djus ds ckn izR;sd FkSfy;ksa ij fy;s x;s uewus dk fooj.k fy;k QeZ ds Jh lqjs'k dqekj ds gLrk{kj djok;s ,oa Lo;a us Hkh gLrk{kj fd;sA " 6. On consideration of the arguments advanced at bar and upon going through the complaint filed in this case, it is evident that the Seed Inspector at the time of taking samples has not followed the mandatory procedure i.e. the manner in which the samples of seed have to be taken this Court whilst dealing with an identical issue in the case of Gauri Shanker (supra), has held that the non-compliance of the mandatory procedure laid down in the Seeds Act and Rules regarding the manner in which the seed samples are to be taken, vitiates the proceedings of the complaint filed for the violation of the Seeds Act. 7. The upshot of the above discussion is that this Court has no hesitation in holding that the proceedings of the entire complaint are vitiated because the mandatory procedure prescribed in the Seeds Act and Rules for the sampling and packing of the samples has not followed by the seizure officer. 8. Resultantly, the present misc. petition succeeds and all the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 68/2009 (347/2008) are herby quashed in its entirety.Stay petition also stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******