JUDGMENT : 1. Common issue has arisen in all the captioned matters, by consent of both the parties, the matters were heard finally and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the complaints under Section 6 and 7 of the Seeds Act, 1966 read with Section 10 of Seeds Rules, 1968 being: (i) Criminal Case No.01 of 2019 in Cr.M.A. No.13348 of 2019 pending in the Court Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Varahi-Santalpur; (ii) Criminal Case No.2193 of 2018 in Cr.M.A. No.13372 of 2019 pending in the Court Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surendranagar; (iii) Criminal Case No.36 of 2019 in Cr.M.A. No.13386 of 2019 pending in the Court Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patan. 3. Facts in all these maters are more or less same. The applicants have challenged the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate on the ground that the applicants are prejudiced, since they could not avail the right of getting the sample seeds examined by the Central Seed Testing Laboratory, as the sample lost its shelf-life and therefore the applicants were deprived of their valuable right of reanalysis. 4. Mr. S.K. Patel, learned advocate for the applicants in all the captioned matters relying on the judgment of Khodiyar Agro Through Trada nanlal Gandhubhai & Ors. Vs. Agriculture officer Shri J.D. Gondaliya & Ors., reported in 2018 LawSuit (Guj.) 24, wherein reliance has been made in the Supreme Court judgment in case of Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. (Now known as Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Pvt. Ltd.) & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [Criminal Appeal No.1092 of 2017 dated 10.07.2017], submitted that Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966, permits the accused – vendor or the complainant to make an application to the Court for sending the sample to the Central Seed laboratory for its report. 5. Advocate Mr. Patel, submitted that such right can be availed by the accused – vendor after the institution of the prosecution under the Seeds Act and the report of the Central Seed Laboratory shall supersede the report given by the seeds analyst. Mr. 5. Advocate Mr. Patel, submitted that such right can be availed by the accused – vendor after the institution of the prosecution under the Seeds Act and the report of the Central Seed Laboratory shall supersede the report given by the seeds analyst. Mr. Patel contended that after the prosecution was launched against the applicants in all the captioned matters and prior to the date of appearance on issuance of summons, shelf life of sample got lost and therefore the applicants could not have the benefit of the provisions made under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966. Mr. Patel submitted that as there was deprivation of the right guaranteed by law to the accused – vendor, further proceedings in the Court of Judicial Magistrate would be futile and therefore has prayed for quashing the prosecution in all the matters. 6. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP for the respondent State, submitted that when the prosecutions were launched before the concerned Judicial Magistrates, the sample seeds were within the shelf-life and the report of the Gandhinagar Laboratory declared the samples as sub-standard and therefore submitted that the institution of the prosecution cannot be considered as invalid. She submits that there could not be any contravention to the rights of the accused causing any prejudice to the defence. Ms. Monali Bhatt, submits that after the opportunity of explanation to the applicants was given, under requisite sanction, the prosecution was launched. Hence, supporting the launching of the prosecution, Ms. Monali, learned APP, prayed for rejecting of all the matters. 7. In Criminal Misc. Application No.13348 of 2019, the relevant particulars are as under: Lot No. Sample collected Sample Received by State Laboratory Date of Report Case filed on Summons issued date Appearance Before the Court Shelf life of the seeds ASL-18-01-BLK-4411 26.06.2018 30.06.2018 30.10.2018 09.01.2019 09.01.2019 22.02.2019 18.02.2019 7.1 In Criminal Misc. Application No.13372 of 2019, the relevant particulars are as under: Lot No. Sample collected Sample Received by State Laboratory Date of Report Case filed on Summons issued date Appearance Before the Court Shelf-life of the seeds ASL-18-01-BLK-4402 05.06.2018 12.06.2018 30.10.2018 24.12.2018 24.12.2018 25.01.2019 22.01.2019 7.2 In Criminal Misc. Application No.13372 of 2019, the relevant particulars are as under: Lot No. Sample collected Sample Received by State Laboratory Date of Report Case filed on Summons issued date Appearance Before the Court Shelf-life of the seeds ASL-18-01-BLK-4402 05.06.2018 12.06.2018 30.10.2018 24.12.2018 24.12.2018 25.01.2019 22.01.2019 7.2 In Criminal Misc. Application No.13386 of 2019, the relevant particulars are as under: Lot No. Sample collected Sample Received by State Laboratory Date of Report Case filed on Summons issued date Appearance Before the Court Shelflife of the seeds ASL-18-01-BLK-4404 26.06.2018 27.06.2018 30.10.2018 15.01.2019 15.01.2019 11.02.2019 26.01.2019 7.3 In all the above cases, the prosecution has been launched on the ground of low germination quality of seeds i.e. Gravel (Bajari) seeds variety “Avani-444++”. As per the Seeds Act, 1966, 95% germination is required and the report of the laboratory declared germination of the seeds as 02% and thereby considered the sample as substandard. 8. Having heard the learned advocates for both the sides and on perusal of the record on hand, the major question which requires consideration in the facts of the matters that prosecution is launched under Seeds Act and before process of summons comes to be served by the Court, the sample loses its shelf-life, whether continuation of the prosecution can be challenged in view of the deprivation of the valuable right vested with the accused – vendor for making an application to the Court of sending the sample for report from the Central Seeds Laboratory? 8.1 Section 16 of the Seeds Act relates to the report of the Seeds Analyst. As per the provision, after receipt of the sample, Seeds Analyst analysis the sample at the State Seed Laboratory and delivers a copy of report of the result in a prescribed form to the Seed Inspector and another copy to the person from whom the samples have been taken. Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act further makes a salutary provision in favour of the accused – vendor. 8.2 Section 16 of the Seeds Act reads as under: “16. Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act further makes a salutary provision in favour of the accused – vendor. 8.2 Section 16 of the Seeds Act reads as under: “16. Report of Seed Analyst: (1) The Seed Analyst shall, as soon as may be after the receipt of the sample under sub-section (2) of section 15, analyse the sample at the State Seed Laboratory and deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, one copy of the report of the result of the analysis to the Seed Inspector and another copy thereof to the person from whom the sample has been taken. (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 sub-section (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 sub-section (1) of section 15 are in tact and may then despatch 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. (3) The report sent by the Central Seed Laboratory under sub-section (2) shall supersede the report given by the Seed Analyst under sub-section (1). (4) Where the report sent by the Central Seed Laboratory under sub-section (2) is produced in any proceedings under section 19, it shall not be necessary in such proceedings to produce any sample or part thereof taken for analysis.” 8.3 Section 16(3) of the Seeds Act makes provision of supersession of the report of the Seed Analyst on receipt of the report from the Central Seed Laboratory. Such report of the Central Seed Laboratory becomes part of the proceedings before the Court under the Seeds Act. The bare reading of Section 16(2) of the Act clearly indicates that the report of the State Seed Laboratory is not final and conclusive to hold the accused guilty for the contravention of the provisions of the Seeds Act. Such report of the Central Seed Laboratory becomes part of the proceedings before the Court under the Seeds Act. The bare reading of Section 16(2) of the Act clearly indicates that the report of the State Seed Laboratory is not final and conclusive to hold the accused guilty for the contravention of the provisions of the Seeds Act. After the institution of the prosecution under the Act, the accused – vendor or the complainant becomes entitle to apply before the Court for sending the samples to the Central Seeds Laboratory for its report. On receipt of the application, the Court shall first ascertain the mark and the seal or fastening as provided in clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 15 of the Seeds Act to find out whether they are in tact and then may dispatch the sample under the Court seal to the Central Seed Laboratory, which laboratory shall thereupon sends 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. This basic right of the accused is for his defence to challenge the correctness of the local seeds analyst report. The said right to defend is in terms of provisions as a fundamental right. Here in all the cases, the shelf-life of the sample got lost prior to the date of appearance of the vendor – accused in the Court. By the time, the accused was summoned to appear in the Court, they lost their right of getting the samples reanalyzed from the Central Seed Laboratory as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Seeds Act. Whether these circumstances would vitiate the trial and thereby could be considered as an abuse of process of Court is to be answered in these present matters. 9. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd. & Ors., reported in (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 190, similar set of circumstances were pleaded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the prosecution was launched against the Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd., who moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the complaint and the consequential proceedings. By the time, summoned to appear in the Court was served, the accused lost their right to get reanalyzed the sample in the C.I.L. in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the provisions of law as laid down under Sections 22, 24 and 30 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, observed that the valuable rights conferred upon the accused to have sample tested from the C.I.L. were deprived, thus, prejudicing them in the defence. 10. It would be very much fruitful to extract hereinbelow Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 to verify the facts of the present matters and to answer the issue whether the rights as guaranteed under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act were deprived. “24. Report of Insecticide Analyst.— (1) The Insecticide Analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis under sub-section (6) of section 22, shall, within a period of [thirty] days, deliver to the Insecticide Inspector submitting it a signed report in duplicate in the prescribed form. (2) The Insecticide Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and shall retain the other copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the sample. (3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by an Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein, and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken has within twenty-eight days of the receipt of a copy of the report notified in writing the Insecticide Inspector or the court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. (4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory, where a person has under subsection (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of the Insecticide Analyst’s report, the court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or of the accused, cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the Magistrate under sub-section (6) of section 22 to be sent for test or analysis to the said laboratory, [which shall, within a period of thirty days, which shall make the test or analysis] and report in writing signed by, or under the authority of, the Director of the Central Insecticides Laboratory the result thereof, and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. (5) The cost of a test or analysis made by the Central Insecticides Laboratory under subsection (4) shall be paid by the complainant or the accused, as the court shall direct.” 10.1 The comparative analysis of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act along with Section 16 of the Seeds Act, would make it clear that the accused under the Insecticides Act would have a right to notify in writing to the Insecticide Inspector or the Court before which any proceedings in respect of samples are pending, his intention to adduce evidence in contravention of the report. Thus, as per the provision of Section 24 of the Insecticide Act even before launching of prosecution, the accused within 28 days on receipt of copy of report may notify in writing to Insecticide Inspector his intention to challenge the Insecticide Analyst report. 10.2 While on bare reading of sub-section (2) of section 16 of the Seeds Act, it could be deduced that, it is only after the institution of the prosecution, the accused – vendor would get his right before the Court to declare by way of application of his intention to challenge the report of the state seed laboratory. Sub-section (2) of section 16 does not provide of making known the intention to adduce the evidence in contravention of the seed analyst’s report to the Seed Inspector. Sub-section (2) of section 16 does not provide of making known the intention to adduce the evidence in contravention of the seed analyst’s report to the Seed Inspector. Thus the accused – vendor would have no other option but to wait for the institution of the prosecution under the Seeds Act and thereafter on his appearance in the Court can avail his right to give the application before the Court concerned praying to send the samples for reanalysis before the Central Seed Laboratory. Here in all the captioned cases, before the applicants could file their appearances in the Court, the shelf-life of the samples got lost. Therefore, after the expiry of the shelf-life, any application before the concerned Court for reexamination of the samples, would lose significance, since the report would bear no result. 11. The Seed Inspector would be very well aware of the provisions of the Act. Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act is a safeguard provided to the accused – vendor. Thus, it would become incumbent on the Seed Inspector to file the complaint within such time period ensuring that the right of the accused does not get lost. In all the matters on hand, when the applicants were asked to present themselves before the Court, pursuant to the launching, the expiry date of the seeds were already over. The applicant were deprived of their rights as guaranteed under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act. The prosecution has sufficient time after the receipt of the report from the State Seed Laboratory to expeditiously prefer the prosecution, which could have provided sufficient time to the Court to present the accused to avail the statutory defence available to them. 12. In all the present cases, the procedural lapse deprived the valuable rights of the applicants to have sample tested from the Central Seed Laboratory. In these circumstances, the prosecution pending in all the Court concerned would be futile and ultimately be redundant. Thus, the continuation of the proceedings against the applicant ultimately would be wastage of precious time of the Court, as valuable rights of defence got lost during the proceedings and there would not be any possibility of conviction in the matters. In these circumstances, the prosecution pending in all the Court concerned would be futile and ultimately be redundant. Thus, the continuation of the proceedings against the applicant ultimately would be wastage of precious time of the Court, as valuable rights of defence got lost during the proceedings and there would not be any possibility of conviction in the matters. Hence, the Court is of the opinion that these are fit cases, where the inherent powers of the Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could be exercised in favour of the applicants for securing the ends of justice. 13. In the result, the applications are allowed. (i) Criminal Case No.01 of 2019 in Cr.M.A. No.13348 of 2019 pending in the Court Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Varahi-Santalpur (ii) Criminal Case No.2193 of 2018 in Cr.M.A. No.13372 of 2019 pending in the Court Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surendranagar and (iii) Criminal Case No.36 of 2019 in Cr.M.A. No.13386 of 2019 pending in the Court Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patan, and the consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are quashed and set aside qua the present applicants. Rule is made absolute.