JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 301/2012 pending in the Court of learned Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 7, PCPNDT Act Cases, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 6, 7 and 19 of the Seeds Act in which proceedings, the petitioners have been summoned as accused vide order dated 7.7.2011. 3. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners has placed on record the complaint filed in this case by the Seed Inspector cum Agriculture Officer. It is 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 petitioners 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 seeds as prescribed under the Act has not been followed in this case. 5. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the fact that the procedure of taking samples of the seeds as prescribed under the Act has not been followed in this case. 5. The relevant portion of the complaint describing the manner of drawing the seed samples in this case is quoted as below:- " ;g gS fd eSllZ tsBey ,.M lUl ikoVk tks/kiqj cht fodzsrk gSa ,oa izkFkhZ crkSj cht fujh{kd dh gSfl;r ls cht dk uewuk ysus gsrq fnukad 27-10-2005 dks QeZ ifjlj ij igqapk bl QeZ ds ikVZuj Jh y{ehukjk;.k iq= Jh tsBey HkkVh QeZ ij ekStwn Fks izkFkhZ us cht dk uewuk ysus ds vk'k; ls Jh y{ehukjk;.k dk dks voxr djk;k x;kA ftldk QkeZ uEcj VI ij bl ckcr mldh jlhn izkIr dh tks layXu gSA nqdku ij eSllZ tsBey ,.M lUl ikoVk tks/kiqj vafdr FkkA fQj :c: Jh y{ehukjk;.k dk QeZ ls cht jk;k fdLe iqlk cksYM yksV uEcj ekpZ 05&20&47&18 dk uewuk fo'ys"k.k gsrq dz; fd;k ,oa mldk cht la[;k 4333 fnukad 27-10-2005 jkf'k ऱ 15@& izkIr fd;k tks ewy gh layXu gSA izko/kku ds vuqlkj jk;k cht fdLe iqlk cksYM mDr yksV esa ls rhu uewus fy;s x;s rFkk izi= 5 esa FkSyh ij yxs VSx dh lwpuk;sa vafdr dj Jh y{ehukjk;.k ls gLrk{kj djok;s x;sA cht ,oa izi= 5 diM+s dh FkSyh esa Mkydj] FkSyh dk eqag cka/k dj dkxt ds fyQkQs esa Mkydj lhycan fd;k x;kA ,d uewuk lhycan gkyr esa QeZ ds ekfyd dks fn;k x;kA nwljk uewuk lhycan gkyr esa jsQjsUl lsEiy ds rkSj ij dk;Zky; esa j[kk x;kA ekSds ij ekSdk ipkZ rS;kj fd;k x;k ftl ij Jh y{ehukjk;.k ,oa xokg ekSrfcjku ds gLrk{kj djk;s x;sA ( ekSdk ipsZ dh izfr layXu gSA ) ,d uewuk lhycUn gkyr esa la;qDr funs'kd d`f"k ( ouLifr ) cht ijh{k.k iz;ksx'kkyk nqxkZ t;iqj dk;kZy; i=kad 2467&70 fnukad 29-10-2005 ds }kjk Jh xksfoUn flag pj.k flag i;Zos{kd dk;kZy; lgk;d funs'kd d`f"k ftyk ifj"kn tks/kiqj ds lkFk Hkstk x;k] vkns'k ds izfr layXu gSA ( layXu ifjf'k"B&AA )" 6. This Court whilst dealing 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 collected, packed and sealed, vitiates the proceedings of the complaint filed for the violation of the Seeds Act and the Rules. Upon going through the relevant portion of 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 collected and sealed. 7. The upshot of the above discussion is that this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order summoning the petitioners as accused in this case as well as the proceedings of the entire complaint are vitiated because the mandatory provisions prescribed in the Seeds Act and Rules for the sampling and packing of the samples have not followed by the Seeds Inspector. 8. Resultantly, the present misc. petition succeeds and all the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 301/2012 are hereby quashed in its entirety.Stay petition also stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******