Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 51 (JHR)

Shiv Prasad Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2022-01-06

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. being Ratu P.S. Case No. 96 of 2017 registered under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Cass, Ranchi. 4. On 18.05.2017, the complaint was filed before the Ratu Police Station stating therein that on the information received, a raid was made in the house of Shiv Prasad Sahu, wherein in a room, different food grains were kept and were not kept in packet. Wrappers of different companies were also recovered. Insecticides were also seized from the place of occurrence, which was not allowed to keep in the house. It has been alleged that said Ram Prasad Sahu and Shiv Prasad Sahu fled away. On the bass of this the FIR has been registered. 5. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on the facts alleged in the FIR, no case of cheating and forgery is made out. He submits that this case is arising out of the Seeds Act, 1966 and Pesticides Act and the offence therein is non-cognizable offence, therefore the police has not authorized to register the FIR and to investigate the matter. He further submits that the procedures under the Seeds Act, 1966 and Pesticides Act have not been complied and no samples of seeds have been given to the petitioners and without awaiting the report of the Seeds Analyst, the instant FIR has been registered. He also submits that the case is arising out of Seeds Act, 1966 and Pesticides Act, the FIR under the Indian Penal Code is against the mandate of law. 6. Mr. He also submits that the case is arising out of Seeds Act, 1966 and Pesticides Act, the FIR under the Indian Penal Code is against the mandate of law. 6. Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the competent person has filed the FIR and in view of that Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer has filed the complaint and he is the competent authority to file this complaint and to support his contention, he relied on Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit. 7. Rule-23(A) of the Seeds Rule 1968 provides that action to be taken by the Seeds Inspector if the complaint is lodged. For the sake of brevity, Rule-23(A) thereof is quoted hereinbelow:- “23A. Action to be taken by the Seed Inspector if a complaint is lodged with him.— (1) If farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that the failure of the crop is due to the defective quality of seeds of any notified kind or variety supplied to him, the Seed Inspector shall take in his possession the marks or labels, the seed containers and a sample of unused seeds to the extent possible from the complaint for establishing the source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the causes of the failure of his crop by sending samples of the lot to the Seed Analyst for detailed analysis at the State Seed Testing Laboratory. He shall thereupon submit the report of his findings as soon as possible to the competent authority. (2) In case, the Seed Inspector comes to the conclusion that the failure of the crop is due to the quality of seeds supplied to the farmer being less than the minimum standards notified by the Central Government, he shall launch proceedings against the supplier for contravention of the provisions of the Act or these rules.” 8. On perusal of this Rule, which specially provides that the investigation is to be carried by the Seed Inspector in respect of the complaint of the farmer regarding failure of crop due to the defective quality of seeds of any notified kind or variety. Sub-Rule-(2) of the said Rule specifically provides that the Seed Inspector can launch the prosecution only after comes to the conclusion that the failure of the crop is due to the bad quality of seeds supplied to the farmer being less than the minimum standards notified by the Central Government. Sub-Rule-(2) of the said Rule specifically provides that the Seed Inspector can launch the prosecution only after comes to the conclusion that the failure of the crop is due to the bad quality of seeds supplied to the farmer being less than the minimum standards notified by the Central Government. Rule-23(A) speaks about the detail investigation by the Seed Inspector by himself on the compliant of farmer due to defective quality of the seeds and the conclusion to be arrived at in that regard by the Seed Inspector himself. There can be no scope for the police authorities for investigation in such cases. That apart Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. specifically provides that the police authorities cannot investigate the matter when the same is non-cognizable. It is clear that the punishment imposable for the offence under the Seeds Act is, less than three years imprisonment, therefore, the same is non-cognizable offence, it cannot be at the same time, said that merely taking shelter of Rule 23(A)(2), the police authorities will get powers to investigate into the matter. The specific provisions in the Code deprive the police authorities to investigate in the matter relating to non-cognizable offences. 9. In view of this Rule and the contention of learned counsel appearing for the State is misconceived. In the case in hand, the police officer has submitted the chargesheet, which is barred in view of this Rule. 10. Moreover, the seized packets have not been sent to the petitioners and on query by the Court, learned counsel appearing for the State is not in a position to submit that whether the seized packets were sent to the petitioners or not. This is one of the essential requirement, under Section 15 of the Seeds Act, 1966, which is the valuable right of any accused. However, the chargesheet has been submitted by the police authorities, but the Sections alleged in the FIR are not attracted in this case. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the charge has been framed in this case. It appears that by order dated 25.11.2017, there was order of no coercive step against the petitioners. 12. It is well settled that in the framing of charge, if the Court finds that there is illegality in the impugned criminal proceeding, the Court can quash the same. 13. Reference may be made in the case of Anand Kumar Mahatta Vrs. It appears that by order dated 25.11.2017, there was order of no coercive step against the petitioners. 12. It is well settled that in the framing of charge, if the Court finds that there is illegality in the impugned criminal proceeding, the Court can quash the same. 13. Reference may be made in the case of Anand Kumar Mahatta Vrs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706, wherein in para-16 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “16. There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.” 14. In view of the above facts and considering that the police has got no power under the Seeds Act to investigate the matter and submit the chargesheet, the prosecution is bad in law. 15. Accordingly the F.I.R., being Ratu P.S. Case No. 96 of 2017 registered under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and entire proceeding, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Cass, Ranchi, are hereby, quashed. 16. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.