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. 44/2012 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 6, 7 R/w Section 19 of the Seeds Act in which proceedings, the petitioners have been summoned as accused vide order dated 23.2.2012. 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 care 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 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 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:- " rRi'pkr~ cht fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 fn;s x;s 'kSM;wy dh izfdz;k dk vuqlj.k djus gq, dikl cht izkbZejh uewuk ysus gsrq bl ykWV dh FkSfy;ksa esa ij[kh }kjk dikl cht dks ,d eksVs dkxt ij fudkydj dEiksftV uewuk rS;kj fd;k] ftldk out 1050 xzke j[kkA dEiksftV uewuk dks rhu cjkcj Hkkxksaa esa ckaVdj diM+s dh rhu FkSfy;ksa esa HkjkA rRi'pkr~ izi= ifjf'k"V ,l&2 dh ikap izfr;ka dj esjh Lo;a dh jcM+ eksgj yxkdj gLrk{kj fd;s ,oa czkl lhy Hkh yxk;h] diM+s dh FkSfy;ksa ij ysfcy dh lwpuk vafdr dhA uewuk dk dksM la[;k HBRG S-10 fn;k x;kA rhuksa diM+s dh FkSfy;ka ifjf'k"V ,l&2 dh ,d&,d izfr Mkydj /kkxs }kjk eqag cka/kdj piM+h ,oa czkl lhy ls uewuk lhy dj fn;k x;kA " 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. 44/2012 are hereby quashed in its entirety.Stay petition also stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******