ORDER : 1. By way of the present application, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the proceedings initiated against the applicant-accused in Criminal Case No. 1028 of 2008 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court at Dhoraji. 2. The brief facts as stated by the applicant for the adjudication of the present application are as under: 2.1. As per the case of the applicant, the respondent no.1 is discharging his duty as Agriculture Officer, Dhoraji. In furtherance to the powers conferred upon the respondent as Seeds Inspector under the Seeds Act, 1966, the respondent no.1 drew a sample of Hybrid Castor seeds, variety ‘Triveni Pooja’ bearing lot no. June-07-TA-01 from one M/s. Gujarat Agro Agency, Dhoraji for analysis. The said sample was sent for analysis to Seed Testing Laboratory at Gandhinagar. That as per the analysis report dated 31.12.2017 of the Seed Testing Laboratory, Gandhinagar, said sample of Hybrid Castor seeds, variety ‘Triveni Pooja’ bearing lot no. June-07- TA-01 was found sub-standard in Genetic Purity Test. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 had issued show cause notice to all the concerned and subsequently filed Criminal Case No. 1028 of 2008 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court at Dhoraji, after almost 10 months of expiry of validity / shelf-life of seeds, for alleged contravention of provisions of Section 6 and Section 7 of the Seeds Act, 1966, punishable under Section 19 of the Seeds Act, 1966. 2.2. The summons was served upon the applicant somewhere in June, 2012, whereby, the applicant- accused came to know about the Criminal Case No. 1028 of 2008. That on knowing about the same, the applicant had appeared before the trial Court and immediately applied for re-analysis of the said sample under section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966 with Central Seed Testing Laboratory at Varansi, without even receiving the copy of the complaint and documents annexed thereto. The applicant had categorically stated in para-4 of the said application that, it may kindly be appreciated that the applicant- accused has still not received the complaint papers. However, as a matter of statutory right guaranteed under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966, the applicant- accused has made this application at the earliest stage after receipt of summons. However, by now the shelflife of the aforesaid seeds has expired, and therefore, now the analysis of the said seeds will not bring proper result. However, as a matter of statutory right guaranteed under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966, the applicant- accused has made this application at the earliest stage after receipt of summons. However, by now the shelflife of the aforesaid seeds has expired, and therefore, now the analysis of the said seeds will not bring proper result. However, appreciating the facts and evidence on record, the trial Court was pleased to reject the application dated 17.10.2013 vide order dated 06.12.2016 mainly on the ground that the validity of sample seeds had expired. Hence, the valuable right of the applicant guaranteed under the Seeds Act, 1966 was vitiated and hence the applicant has filed the present application with the aforesaid reliefs. 3. Heard Mr. Mihir A. Surti, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State. 4.1. Mr. Mihir A. Surti, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that on 31.07.2007, the respondent no.1 herein drew sample of Hybrid Castor Seeds, variety ‘Triveni Pooja’ bearing lot no. JUN-07-TA-01. The respondent no.1 sent sample to Seed Testing Laboratory at Gandhinagar for analysis on 31.07.2007. The sample was received by the Seed Analyst at STL, Gandhinagar on 08.08.2007. On 31.12.2007, Seed Analyst gave its report, wherein, the said sample of Hy. Castor Seeds was found sub-standard in Genetic Purity Test. 4.2. Mr. Surti, learned counsel further submitted that on 13.10.2008, the complaint being Criminal Case No. 1028 of 2008 came to be filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court at Dhoraji and summons came to be served upon the applicant in June, 2012. 4.3. Mr. Surti, learned counsel submitted that, in the meanwhile, the shelf-life of said lot of Hy. Castor Seeds expired in December, 2007. 4.4. Mr. Surti, learned counsel submitted that, thereafter, applicant herein preferred an application under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966, below Exh.24 for reanalysis on 17.12.2013. 4.5. By order dated 06.12.2016, the concerned Court rejected the said application below Exh.24 preferred by the applicant. 4.6. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant herein has constrained to approach this Court by way of the present application. 5.1. On the other hand, Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, learned APP submitted that the aforesaid issue can be said to be academic in nature. Ms. 4.6. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant herein has constrained to approach this Court by way of the present application. 5.1. On the other hand, Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, learned APP submitted that the aforesaid issue can be said to be academic in nature. Ms. Mehta, learned APP referring to the order impugned passed below Exh.24, which is duly produced at page-18 and placing reliance of the same submitted that, the concerned Court while rejecting the application, considered that the shelf-life of the said lot of seeds had expired way back in December, 2007, and therefore, taking into consideration the sample which was taken below Form-8, as referred above. 5.2. Ms. Mehta, learned APP placing reliance on the above, submitted that, since the concerned Court itself had stated that the shelf-life of the seeds in question expired way back in December, 2007, the sample in question could not be sent for re-analysis and the same would take of entire dispute in question, once it was held that seeds could not be sent for re-analysis. 5.3. Ms. Mehta, learned APP further submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned order. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, in view of this Court, without repeating the facts of the case, it is undisputed fact that the samples in question were drawn on 31.07.2007 as stated above, the shelf-life of the seeds in question already expired way back in December, 2007. The prosecution came to be lodged, after a period of 8 months, summons came to be issued in June, 2012 and the applicant herein could exercise his right of re-analysis under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966 below Exh.24 only on 17.10.2013. 7. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads thus: “468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub- section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub- section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be- (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.]” 8. Considering the Section 468 of the Act, the complaint having been filed after a period of more than 8 months, could be said to be a time-barred complaint. The maximum period could be said to be 6 months, however, though the samples were received as back as on 31.12.2007, the prosecution was lodged as back as on 13.10.2008. 9. Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966 reads thus: “16. Report of Seed Analyst.- xxx (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.” 10. Section 19 of the Seeds Act, 1966 reads thus: “19. Section 19 of the Seeds Act, 1966 reads thus: “19. Penalty.—If any person— (a) contravenes any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder; or (b) prevents a Seed Inspector from taking sample under this Act; or (c) prevents a Seed Inspector from exercising any other power conferred on him by or under this Act, he shall, on conviction, be punishable— (i) for the first offence with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, and (ii) in the event of such person having been previously convicted of an offence under this section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” 11. Considering the same, under Section 468(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the maximum period of limitation to file a complaint is 6 months, considering Section 19 of the Seeds Act. The prosecution was however lodged after a lapse of 8 months and hence the complaint itself is held to be time barred. 12. Further the sample also lost its shelf-life way back in December, 2007, even prior to the initiation of the prosecution on 13.10.2008. The valuable right of the applicant herein can be said to be to have been violated by delay in initiation of the prosecution. The concerned Court while rejecting the application below Exh.24 also considered the aforesaid aspect and considering the same, it is undisputed fact and the same is recorded by the concerned Court, while passing the order below Exh.24, which reads thus: “….Representations of both the parties have been considered, in this case at first it is noticeable that, the present application on behalf of the accused (defense) have been submitted for carrying out the re-analysis of the sample u/s. 16(2) of Seeds Act. Over here, such fact have been admitted by both the parties that, the expiry date of the sample has been passed of the seed which was taken for sample. The representation which is done on behalf of the accused (defense) side is that, the present complaint was lodged on 13/10/2008. In Sample-8 which is produced on behalf of the prosecution, it is written as April- 2007 valid up to Dec. 2007 against the testing date. The representation which is done on behalf of the accused (defense) side is that, the present complaint was lodged on 13/10/2008. In Sample-8 which is produced on behalf of the prosecution, it is written as April- 2007 valid up to Dec. 2007 against the testing date. Hence, actually it could be decided at the end of evidence as to whether these dates of seeds are from its manufacturing date up to its expiry date or not. It is written in sample– 7 that it was received on 08/08/2007 and its result was prepared on 31/12/2007. According to Rule -21(3) of the Seeds Act, the report is to be prepared within 30 days. But from this Report, it is found that it was given after four months. Hence, prima-facie it is found that the shell life of the seed was already expired at the time when the present complaint was filed against the accused, further fact could be decided after the completion of evidence. Hence, at this stage, no any fruitful result could be received at all by sending the sample for re-analysis. Also as such fact has been already admitted from the defense side, so now there is no meaning to send it for re-analysis. Hence, looking to the overall facts and according to the application from the defense side, it is not found fair (justifiable) to sent the sample for re-analysis. Also according to the dispute which has been raised in the present application from the accused (defense) side, whether the Statutory rights of the accused have been violated as per section 16(2) of the Seeds Act or not ? It is found proper to be decided at the end of the evidence, the following Order is passed with such decision. ORDER Herewith the application of the accused for re-analysis is hereby rejected. As per the dispute raised on behalf of the accused (defense), as to whether his Statutory rights as per section 16(2) of Seeds Act have been violated or not ? It is ordered to decide it at the completion of evidence.” 13. This Court also deems it fit to refer to the position of law: (I) In the case of Shree Mahalaxmi Seeds & Ors. It is ordered to decide it at the completion of evidence.” 13. This Court also deems it fit to refer to the position of law: (I) In the case of Shree Mahalaxmi Seeds & Ors. V/s. State of Gujarat, reported in 2014 (1) GLR 319 , relevant para-9, 20, 22 and 23 reads thus: “(9.) In view of the contention raised by the petitioners to support the relief prayed for in present petition, it is necessary to keep in focus the relevant dates. Sr.No . Particulars Date 1 Date of which sample was drawn/collected 01/07/08 2 Date on which the sample was forwarded to the laboratory 04/07/08 3 Date on which the laboratory received the sample 07/07/08 4 Germination test report was made 29/07/08 5 Further report (grow out test) was made 31/12/08 6 Reports were received by the respondent 12/01/09 7 Respondent submitted proposal to the Director of Agriculture 12/02/09 8 Competent authority gave sanction 06/03/09 9 Complaint came to be filed 17/04/09 10 Order issuing summons passed 17/04/09 11 Application under Section 16(2) was submitted 25/06/09 12 Application under Section 258 of the CrPC 15/09/09 9.1 Besides the above-mentioned relevant dates, the other two dates require to be kept in focus are (i) the date of packaging and (ii) expiry date mentioned on the package of the seeds. 9.2 According to the respondent's affidavit, the dates mentioned on the package reflected packaging date as May, 2008 and expiry date as January, 2009. 9.3 Thus, what emerges from the above-mentioned relevant dates and other relevant facts is that the packaged seeds were 'good until' or 'valid upto' January, 2009. 9.4 Meaning thereby if the re-test or re- analysis is undertaken after January, 2009, then such test - analysis would not yield correct result and could be negative. Differently put, the result would not be worthy to place reliance on. (20.) In this context, it would be profitable to refer to the observations by the Hon'ble Apex Court with reference to the similar provisions under the Insecticides Act. In the case between State of Haryana V/s. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd. [2000 Cri. Law Journal 2962], Hon'ble Apex Court observed that: "11. (20.) In this context, it would be profitable to refer to the observations by the Hon'ble Apex Court with reference to the similar provisions under the Insecticides Act. In the case between State of Haryana V/s. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd. [2000 Cri. Law Journal 2962], Hon'ble Apex Court observed that: "11. Sub-section (1) of Section 30 which appears to be relevant only prescribes in effect that ignorance would be of no defence but that does not mean that if there are contraventions of other mandatory provisions of the Act, the accused have no remedy. Procedure for testing the sample is prescribed and if it is contravened to the prejudice of the accused, he certainly has right to seek dismissal of the complaint. There cannot be two opinions about that. Then in order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested from Central Insecticides 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, expiry date of the insecticide was already over and sending of sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory at that late stage would be of no consequence. This issue is no longer res integra. In State of Punjab V/s. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., (1996) 10 JT (SC) 480 this Court in somewhat similar circumstances said that the Act deprived the accused to have sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and adduce evidence of the report so given in his defence. This Court stressed the need to lodge the complaint with utmost dispatch so that the accused may opt to avail the statutory defence. The Court held that the accused had been deprived of a valuable right statutorily available to him. On this view of the matter, the Court did not allow the criminal complaint to proceed against the accused. We have cases under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 involving the same question. The Court held that the accused had been deprived of a valuable right statutorily available to him. On this view of the matter, the Court did not allow the criminal complaint to proceed against the accused. We have cases under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 involving the same question. In this connection reference be made to decisions of this Court in State of Haryana V/s. Brij Lal Mittal, (1998) 5 SCC 434 : (1998 AIR SCW 2240 : AIR 1998 SC 2327 : 1998 /Cri LJ 3287) under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s. Ghisa Ram, AIR 1967 SC 970 : (1967 Cri LJ 939); Chetumal V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1981) 3 SCC 72 : ( AIR 1981 SC 1387 : 1981 Cri LJ 1009) and Calcutta Municipal Corporation V/s. Pawan Kumar Saraf, (1999) 2 SCC 400 : (1999 AIR SCW 346 : AIR 1999 SC 738 : 1999 Cri LJ 1125) all under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 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 sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act. Under sub-section (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 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." (22.) In this context, it would be appropriate, even at the cost of repetition, to revert to the details of the dates and events mentioned hereinabove earlier. It is noticed from the said details that - (a) On 1.7.2008, the sample was drawn/collected; (b) On 4.7.2008, the sample was forwarded to the Seed Analyst at State Laboratory; (c) On 7.7.2008, the Laboratory / Seed Analyst received the sample; (d) On 12.1.2009, the Seed Inspector received the report of Seed Analyst; (e) On 12.2.2009, the Seed Inspector submitted proposal for initiating prosecution; (f) On 6.3.2009, the competent authority granted sanction; (g) On 17.4.2009, the complaint in question came to be filed. 22.1 The above-mentioned chronology brings out that the Seed Analyst received the sample on 7.7.2008, whereas the report was forwarded on or around 31.12.2008 and it was received by the respondent (i.e. Seed Inspector) as per his affidavit on 12.1.2009, i.e. after more than about 5 months from the date when the Seed Analyst received the sample. It is also noticed that the shelf life of the seeds / sample in question expired in January, 2009, whereas the prosecution came to be initiated (on 17.4.2009) after the shelf life expired (in January, 2009). (23.) Thus, when the prosecution was initiated, the right available to the petitioners under Section 16(2) read with Section 16(3) of the Act was already frustrated because in view of the delay, the petitioners could not make any application to the Court under Section 16(2) for sending the seeds / sample for reanalysis to the Central Seeds Laboratory after the expiry of shelf life of the seeds / sample in question inasmuch as after the expiry date de- generation of the seeds would set-in / commence. Consequently, the petitioners are deprived of their right available under Section 16(2) and therefore, their defence is jeopardised and frustrated. (II) In the case of Khodiyar Agro through Trada Nanlal Gandhubhai & Ors. v/s. Agriculture Officer Shri J.D. Gondaliya & Anr. reported in 2018 LawSuit (Guj.) 24, relevant para 10 and 20 reads thus: “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. reported in 2018 LawSuit (Guj.) 24, relevant para 10 and 20 reads thus: “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. 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.” (III) In the case of Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. (now known as Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Pvt. Ltd.) and Ors. v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2017(1) SCC 367, relevant para – 4 and 5 reads thus: “4. The point agitated is short and precise. The sample of seeds was taken on 01.09.2002 and the report of the Seed 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. The point agitated is short and precise. The sample of seeds was taken on 01.09.2002 and the report of the Seed 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, vesting a valuable right either in the accused or the complainant as may be. 5. In the present case, by the time the complaint came to be filed on 31.01.2003, the sample has lost its shelf life. If that be so, the accused-appellant must be understood to have been deprived of his valuable right of reanalysis.” 14. Considering the position of law as stated above and facts of the dispute in question, in view of this Court, even if considering the facts of the present case that the shelf-life of the seeds in question expired way back on 31.07.2007 as mentioned in the Form-VIII (pg.24) and the prosecution came to be lodged on 13.10.2008, after the expiry of shelf-life, as referred to in the impugned order passed by the Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 1028 of 2008 dated 06.12.2016. The applicant certainly lost his valuable right of re-analysis under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966. For the aforesaid reasons, the sample could not be reanalysed and in view of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the trial. The sample having lost its shelf-life even prior to lodging of prosecution, the trial would be a futile exercise and would be academic. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the present application stands allowed. The Criminal Case No. 1028 of 2008 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class Court at Dhoraji qua the present applicant stands terminated, accordingly. The present writ-application stands allowed, accordingly. Direct service is permitted.