ORDER : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 16.9.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar and for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 154/2020 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Section 13(1)(c) of the Seeds Control Order, 1983 and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3. The principle contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis whereof the proceedings of the complaint have been assailed is that the mandatory procedure prescribed for sampling of the seeds has not been followed in this case and, therefore, the proceedings of the complaint are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record the complaint filed in this case by the Seed Inspector (General), office of Joint Director, Agriculture (Extension) Division, Raisinghnagar and copy of mauka parcha dated 8.5.2020. It is submitted that as per the admitted fact mentioned in the complaint, the samples of the seeds were simply packed in the cloth bags and sent to the laboratory for analysis. He, therefore, contends that the mandatory procedure prescribed in the Seeds Act and Rules was not followed. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Gauri Shanker & Ors. v. State reported in 2011(2) Cr. L.R.(Raj.) 1685, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings are liable to be quashed as the mandatory procedure of sampling has not been adhered to. 4. Learned PP is not in a position to dispute the fact that the procedure of taking samples of the seed as prescribed under the Act has not been followed in this case. 5. 4. Learned PP is not in a position to dispute the fact that the procedure of taking samples of the seed as prescribed under the Act has not been followed in this case. 5. The relevant portion of the complaint filed in this case is quoted as below:- ^^mijksä y‚Vl esa ls fuèkkZfjr fofèk ¼cht vfèkfu;e 1966 ds rgr cht fu;e 1968 dh fcUnw la[;k 24] 25 ,oa 26 ,oa cht fu;a=.k vkns'k 1983 ds vuqPNsn 13 ds rgr vuqlwph esa mYysf[kr çfØ;k½ dk vuqlj.k djrs gq, rhu&rhu uewusa ¼fjitsUVsfVo lSEiy½ fy;sA çR;sd uewus ds fy;s fuèkkZfjr çi=&5 dh ikap çfr;ka rS;kj dj viuh lhy o ihry dh eqæk ls vafdr fd;kA çR;sd uewuk fuèkkZfjr ek=k ,d fdyksxzke otu dk diM+s dh FkSyh esa j[kdj mlesa çi= ikap dh çfr j[kdj iDds èkkxs ls ckaèkk x;kA rRi'pkr dBksj eksVs dkxt ds fyQkQs esa j[kdj fyQkQs ds fdukjksa dks xksan ls fpidkdj iSdsV dks eksVs èkkxs ls Økl ckaèkrs gq;s xkaB yxkbZ xbZ ,oa foØsrk ls iSdsV ij gLrk{kj djok;s x;s rFkk èkkxs dh xkaB ds mij] uhps o nks vU; txgksa ij piM+h ls esjh ihry dh eqnzk vafdr djrs gq;s lhYM fd;k x;k ¼cht fu;a=.k vkns'k 1983 dh vuqlwph ds fcUnw la[;k 4 ,-ch- o lh ds vuqlkj½A uewuk ysus dh lEiw.kZ dk;Zokgh Jh fodkl caly iq= Jh —".k yky QeZ ds ikVZuj dh mifLFkfr esa lEiUu dh xbZ] ftlls og iw.kZ :i ls lger FksA rRi'pkr cht vfèkfu;e 1966 dh èkkjk 15[2][1] ds vuqlj.k esa fy;s x;s uewuksa esa ls çR;sd y‚V dk ,d&,d uewuk Jh fodkl caly iq= Jh —".k yky QeZ ds ikVZuj dks fn;k x;k vkSj çi=&8 ij ikVZuj ds gLrk{kj çkIr fd;sA çR;sd y‚V ds 'ks"k nks&nks uewus ,d&,d cht ijh{k.k ç;ksx'kkyk esa fHktokus rFkk ,d&,d lhycUn uewuk çfr jSQjh uewuk crkSj Jheku la;qä funs'kd —f"k] Jhxaxkuxj dks tek djokus gsrq dk;kZy; esa lqjf{kr j[kkA 5- ;g gS fd uewuksa dh dher ds Hkqxrku gsrq fcy u0- 201 fnukad 08-05-2020 çkIr fd;kA 'kkfey bLrxklk gSA 6- ;g gS fd mä cht uewuks dh ,d&,d uewuk çfr dks dk;kZy; i=kad 129 fnukad 11-05-2020 ds }kjk tkap ds fy;s vfèklwfpr jktdh; cht ijh{k.k ç;ksx'kkyk] Jhxaxkuxj dks fo'ys"k.k gsrq fHktok;k x;k] tks bl çdkj ds fo'ys"k.k gsrq l{ke gSA dk;kZy; ia=kd 130 fnukad 11-05-2020 ds }kjk mä cht uewuks dh ,d&,d uewuk çfr Jheku la;qä funsZ'kd —f"k] Jhxaxkuxj dks jSQjh uewuk crkSj dk;kZy; esa lqjf{kr j[kus gsrq nh xbZA mijksä i=ksa dh çfr layXu gSA** (emphasis supplied) 6. On consideration of the arguments advanced at bar and upon going through the complaint filed in this case, it is evident that the Seed Inspector at the time of taking samples has not followed the mandatory procedure i.e. the manner in which the samples of seed have to be taken. this Court whilst dealing with an identical issue in the case of Gauri Shanker (supra), has held that the non-compliance of the mandatory procedure laid down in the Seeds Act & Rules regarding the manner in which the seed samples are to be taken, vitiates the proceedings upon the complaint filed for the violation of the Seeds Act. 7. The upshot of the above discussion is that this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order summoning the petitioners as accused person as well as the proceedings of the entire complaint are vitiated because the mandatory provisions prescribed in the Seeds Act and Rules for the sampling and packing of the samples have not followed by the seizure officer. 8. Resultantly, the present misc. petition succeeds and all the proceedings of complaint case no. 154/2020 are hereby quashed in its entirety. 9. Stay petition also stands disposed of.