Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 300 (RAJ)

K. v. Subbarao VS State of Rajasthan

2018-01-23

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to assail the proceedings of Cr. Complaint No. 205/2014 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. 2. From the numerous grounds raised in the petition, while addressing the Court, learned counsel Mr. Ramesh Saboo restricted his arguments to the solitary ground for breach of the statutory right available to the accused under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act of challenging the report of State Seed Analyst in support of the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. Mr. Saboo points out from the record that the samples of seeds in question were collected from the vendor on 27.6.2013. The sample was forwarded to the State Seed Analyst on 1.7.2013. When analysis was conducted and the report of the Seed Laboratory, Chittorgarh was received on 12.8.2013, the accused were notified of this report on 6.9.2013 and 24.10.2013. The complaint came to be filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 6.5.2014. Relying upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. (Now Known as Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co Pvt. Ltd) & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. (s) 4017/2017) decided on 10.7.2017, Mr. Saboo urged that the statutory right available to the accused of challenging the Seed Analyst's report by having the second sample re-analysed from the Central Laboratory as per Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, has been irretrievably frustrated because the complaint itself was filed after expiry of the shelf life of the seeds in question. He contends that as the statutory right available to the accused of challenging the State Seed Laboratory's report was totally frustrated allowing prosecution of the petitioner and the other accused persons in this case is impermissible and amounts to a gross abuse of process of law. 3. Learned P.P., vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and urged that repeated notices were served upon the accused intimating them of the Seed Analyst's Report but they failed to respond thereto. They intentionally avoided to provide the requisite information to the Inquiry Officer and that is why the delay occurred which is bonafide. As per the learned P.P., the accused themselves are responsible for causing the delay in filing of the complaint and thus cannot claim advantage thereof. 4. They intentionally avoided to provide the requisite information to the Inquiry Officer and that is why the delay occurred which is bonafide. As per the learned P.P., the accused themselves are responsible for causing the delay in filing of the complaint and thus cannot claim advantage thereof. 4. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 5. As per the admitted factual position emerging from record, the seed samples were collected by Seed Inspector on 27.6.2013. One sample was forwarded to the State Seed Laboratory for testing on 1.7.2013. The memorandum issued to the State Seed Analyst by the Inspector on 27.6.2013 clearly indicates that the shelf life of seeds was upto 21.10.2013. The State Seed Analyst forwarded its report to the Seed Inspector vide letter dated 12.8.2013. Thus, if at all the Seed Inspector was desirous of launching a valid prosecution against the accused under the Seeds Act, he had to act quickly and file the complaint in the Court concerned well before the expiry of shelf life of the seeds so as to provide them a suitable window under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act so as to challenge the State Seed Analyst report, if they so desired. Mere intimation of the Inspector's report to the accused during enquiry is of no avail whatsoever because Seeds Act does not provide for any mechanism whereby the accused can challenge the State Seed Analyst's report before lodging of the complaint. Admittedly, the complaint came to be filed as late as on 6.5.2014 by which time the shelf life of the seeds samples had hopelessly expired. The controversy at hand is squarely covered by the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. (Now Known as Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co Pvt. Ltd) & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Hence, this Court is of the firm opinion that allowing the prosecution of the petitioner and the other co-accused in relation to the impugned complaint is totally unjustified and amounts to a gross abuse of process of law. 7. Thus, the instant misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Entire proceedings of Cr. 6. Hence, this Court is of the firm opinion that allowing the prosecution of the petitioner and the other co-accused in relation to the impugned complaint is totally unjustified and amounts to a gross abuse of process of law. 7. Thus, the instant misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Entire proceedings of Cr. Complaint No. 205/2014 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara for the offences under Section 6, 7 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and Seeds Order 1983 read with Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 are hereby quashed.