JUDGMENT : 1 Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Moxa Thakkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents. 2 By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants – original accused persons seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.157 of 2014 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhesan, District: Junagadh. 3 The applicant No.1 herein namely 'Khodiyar Agro' is the dealer, the applicant No.2 namely 'Shri Trada Nandlal Gandhubhai' is the authorized person of the applicant No.1 – firm, the applicant No.3 namely 'Vishal Agro Chemicals' is the distributor, the applicant No.4 namely 'Shri Devendrabhai Veljbhai Timabaliya' is the authorised person of the applicant No.3, and the applicant No.5 namely 'Navbharat Seeds Pvt. Ltd.' is the manufacturer. 4 It appears from the materials on record that the Agriculture Officer, Bhesan, in exercise of his powers under the Seeds Act, 1966 collected samples of cumin seeds variety “G.C. 4”, stage certified, bearing lot No.MAR130600602018162 from the applicant No.1 Khodiyar Agro for the purpose of analysis. The samples were collected on 12th November 2013. The samples were sent for analysis to the seeds testing laboratory at Junagadh. The laboratory, in its report dated 16th December 2013, certified the seeds to be substandard. Thereafter, the authority concerned issued a show cause notice dated 19th December 2013 to the dealer, a show cause notice dated 10th January 2014 to the distributor and a show cause notice dated 22nd January 2014 to the manufacturer calling upon them to explain the report of the laboratory referred to above. Each of the applicants herein replied to the show cause notice in their own way. Ultimately, on 11th April 2014, a complaint was filed by the respondent No.1 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhesan, District: Junagadh for the offence punishable under Sections 6(1) and 7(b) read with 19(a) of the Seeds Act, 1966. 5 At this stage, it is important to note that shelf life of the samples was till 23rd March 2014. Mr. Mihir Surti, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the prosecution against the applicants should fail on the short ground of violation of Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966. 5 At this stage, it is important to note that shelf life of the samples was till 23rd March 2014. Mr. Mihir Surti, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the prosecution against the applicants should fail on the short ground of violation of Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966. He would submit that under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966, after the institution of the prosecution, the accused is vested with a right to make an application to the Court for sending a part of the sample to the Central Seeds Laboratory for reanalysis. It is submitted that by the time, the complaint came to be filed on 11th April 2014, the samples lost its shelf life. The applicants thereby were deprived of their valuable right of reanalysis. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd (Now known as Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co Pvt Ltd) and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others [Criminal Appeal No.1092 of 2017 decided on 10th July 2017]. 6 In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants prays that there being merit in this application, the same be allowed and the proceedings be quashed. 7 On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by Ms. Moxa Thakkar, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. Ms. Thakkar, the learned A.P.P. submitted that the issue with regard to right of the accused persons under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966 can be looked into by the Trial Court. According to the learned A.P.P., this Court may not go into such issue. The learned A.P.P. submits that there being no merit in this application, the same be rejected. 8 Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the complaint should be quashed. 9 Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966 reads as under: “16 Report of Seed Analyst. (1) …... 8 Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the complaint should be quashed. 9 Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966 reads as under: “16 Report of Seed Analyst. (1) …... (2) After the institution of a prosecution under this Act, the accused vendor or the complainant may, on payment of the prescribed fee, make an application to the Court for sending any of the samples mentioned in clause (a) or clause (c) of subsection (2) of section 15 to the Central Seed Laboratory for its report and on receipt of the application, the Court shall first ascertain that the mark and the seal or fastening as provided in clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 15 are intact and may then dispatch the sample under its own seal to the Central Seed Laboratory which shall thereupon send its report to the Court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the sample, specifying the result of the analysis.” 10 The plain reading of Section 16(2) of the Act, 1966 would indicate that the report of the local seeds testing laboratory is not final and conclusive so as to hold the accused guilty of the contravention of the provisions of the Act. Under Section 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 sending the samples to the Central Seeds Laboratory for retesting or rechecking the veracity of the report of the local seeds laboratory, and as per Subsection (3) of the Section 16 of the Act, this report of the Central Seeds Testing Laboratory supersedes the report of the local seeds testing laboratory. This right has to be exercised by the accused. If the accused does not apply before the Court concerned, then he cannot complain of breach of Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act or his right to get the samples reanalyzed. 11 In the case at hand, such application under Section 16(4) of the Seeds Act was filed by the manufacturer, as evident from page: 26/A at Annexure: 'D' to this paper book. 11 In the case at hand, such application under Section 16(4) of the Seeds Act was filed by the manufacturer, as evident from page: 26/A at Annexure: 'D' to this paper book. As the shelf life of the seeds in the case at hand was till 23rd March 2014, the prosecution should have been filed within that period. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants rightly contended that the Indian Seeds Minimum Certification Manual itself prescribes the validity period of such certificates. If it is not done, then, an opportunity of challenge and rebutting the local seeds testing laboratory by submitting the seeds beyond the period of shelf life 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 the period of shelf life. 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. [See: S. Jayanarayana vs. State of Karnataka (2003 Cri. L.J. 3245)]. 12 At this stage, let me look into the two decisions of the Supreme Court. 13 In the case of Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd (supra), the Supreme Court observed in para 4 as under: “The point agitated is short and precise. The sample of seeds was taken on 01.09.2002 and the report of the Seeds Analyst is dated 26.09.2002. The shelf life of the sample was till 07.11.2002 which is evident from the details of the samples taken, mentioned in Form VIII. A complaint was filed on 31.01.2003. Under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966 after institution of above prosecution, the accused or the complainant, as may be, is vested with a right to make an application to the Court for sending a part of the sample to the Central Seed Laboratory for reanalysis. Such pari materia provisions in other statutes have been held by this Court to be mandatory. Such pari materia provisions in other statutes have been held by this Court to be mandatory. Vesting a valuable right either in the accused or the complainant as may be.” 14 In the case of State of Haryana vs. Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd. And others [ (1999) 8 SCC 190 ], the Supreme Court observed as under: “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 Insecticide 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 Ss. 24(3) and 245 (4) of the Insecticides Act the report of the Insecticide 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. 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.” 15 In Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd (supra), the Supreme Court in para 12 of the judgment has made the following observations: “12. The High Court rightly quashed the criminal complaint.” 15 In Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd (supra), the Supreme Court in para 12 of the judgment has made the following observations: “12. It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that the respondents in these appeals have been deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory under subsection (4) of Section 24 of the Act. Under subsection (3) of Section 24 report signed by the Insecticide analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and shall be conclusive evidence against the accused only if the accused do not, within 28 days of the receipt of the report, notify in writing to the Insecticides Inspector or the Court before which proceedings are pending that they intend to adduce evidence to controvert the report. In the present cases Insecticide Inspector was notified that the accused intended to adduce evidence to controvert the report. By the time the matter reached the court, shelf life of the sample had already expired and no purpose would have been served informing the court of such an intention. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was, therefore, 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 accused have been deprived of that right, thus, prejudicing them in their defence.” 16 In the case of Smt. Mallela Laxmi and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2003 Cri. L.J. 638], the Andhra Pradesh High Court, by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of State of Haryana vs. Unique Farmaid (supra), while considering the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966 in para 14 of the judgment, has made the following observations: “14. It is clear from Section 16 of the Act that the petitioners had the right to send the sample for analysis to the Central Seed Laboratory. It is a statutory right conferred on the petitioners, which cannot be deprived. Deprival of the said right would certainly cause prejudice since the valuable right to get the sample analysed is lost. It is clear from Section 16 of the Act that the petitioners had the right to send the sample for analysis to the Central Seed Laboratory. It is a statutory right conferred on the petitioners, which cannot be deprived. Deprival of the said right would certainly cause prejudice since the valuable right to get the sample analysed is lost. I am of the considered view that the shelf life of the seed has expired and there is no purpose in continuing the prosecution as it amounts to abuse of process of the Court as adumbrated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions. The department itself has to be blamed for the sorry state of affairs for launching the prosecution belatedly and sleeping over the matter. When once prejudice is caused to the petitioners, they are certainly entitled to invoke the inherent powers of this Court. Hence, I disagree with the contentions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor. Since the shelf life of the seed has expired, the question of sending the same to Central Seed Laboratory for analysis does not arise and the petitioners are certainly entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.” 17 In the case of S.A. Jayanarayana vs. State of Karnakata [2003 Cri. L.J. 638], the Karnataka High Court, after considering the provisions of Section 16(2) of Seeds Act 1966, has also taken the similar view. 18 The Bombay Court, in the case of Shivakumar vs. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 2 FAC 239], considered identical provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Seeds Act 1966 and the Insecticides Act 1968. While referring various judgments of the Supreme Court, including the judgment in the case of State of Haryana vs. Unique Farmaid (supra), has taken similar view and further observed that in case of such violation, the prosecution cannot succeed and it is of no use in continuing with the prosecution. The order passed by the Bombay High Court stands confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 6332 of 2010. 19 In the case of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ghisa Ram [1948-1997 (supp) FAC 93] in the Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1966 decided on 23rd November 1966, in para 9 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has made the following observations: “9. 19 In the case of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ghisa Ram [1948-1997 (supp) FAC 93] in the Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1966 decided on 23rd November 1966, in para 9 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has made the following observations: “9. In the present case, the sample was taken on the 20th September, 1961. Ordinarily, it should have been possible for the prosecution to obtain the report of the Public Analyst and institute the prosecution within 17 days of the taking of the sample. It, however, appears that delay took place even in obtaining the report of the Public Analyst, because the Public Analyst actually analysed the sample on 3rd October, 1961 and sent his report on 23rd October, 1961. It may be presumed that some delay in the analysis by the Public analyst and in his sending his report to the prosecution is bound to occur. Such delay could always be envisaged by the prosecution and consequently, the elementary precaution of adding a preservative to the sample which was given to the respondent should necessarily have been taken by the Food Inspector. If such a precaution had been taken the sample with the respondent would have been available for analysis by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for a period of four months which having been sent on 23rd October, 1961 to the prosecution, the prosecution could have been launched well in time to enable the respondent to exercise his right under Section 13(2) of the Act without being handicapped by the deterioration of his sample. The prosecution, on the other hand, committed inordinate delay in launching the prosecution when they filed the complaint on 23rd May, 1962 and no explanation is forthcoming when the complaint in Court was filed about seven months after the report of the Public Analyst has been issued by him. This is, therefore, clearly a case when the respondent was deprived of the opportunity of exercising his right to have his sample examined by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory by the conduct of the prosecution. This is, therefore, clearly a case when the respondent was deprived of the opportunity of exercising his right to have his sample examined by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory by the conduct of the prosecution. In such a case, we think that the respondent entitled to claim that his conviction is vitiated by this circumstance of denial of this valuable right guaranteed by the Act, as a result of the conduct of the prosecution.” 20 In a catena of judgments, relied upon by the counsel for the applicants, the Court has laid down that the samples have to be tested by the Central Laboratory before the expiry of shelf life of the sample and if the shelf life of the sample has expired, it causes prejudice. The complaint therefore, stands vitiated for the sole reason that the applicants accused have been deprived of their valuable rights, as provided under the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act. 21 In view of the aforesaid discussion, this application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The proceedings of the Criminal Case No.157 of 2014 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhesan, District: Junagadh, are hereby quashed. All consequential proceedings pursuant thereto stand terminated. 22 At this stage, I deem it proper and appropriate to say something as regards the procedure adopted by the respondent No.1 herein. As noted above, after the receipt of the report of the local seeds testing laboratory dated 16th December 2013, three show cause notices came to be issued to the applicants dated 19th December 2013, 10th January 2014 and 22nd January 2014 respectively calling upon each of the applicants herein to show cause as to why prosecution should not be instituted under the Seeds Act, 1966 considering the report of the laboratory. I fail to understand, under which provisions of law, such cause notices were issued. Why this time had to be wasted. Once there is a report of the local seeds testing laboratory, the complaint could have been straightway filed by the respondent No.1. 23 Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.