JUDGMENT : 1. By way of preferring present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1972, the applicants have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashing and setting aside the criminal complaint being Criminal Case No.756/2008 pending before the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Upleta for the offences under Sections 6 and 7 of the Seeds Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1966” for short) and under Rule 10 of the Seeds Rules, 1968. 2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. A.I. Surti for the applicants and learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi for the respondents. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present application are as under, 3.1 The applicant no.1 is the owner of the shop and retail distributor of the product viz., Hybrid Bajra seeds variety “Swaminath- 2001”, whereas the applicant no.2 is the owner and manufacture of the said product and the respondent no.1 is the Agriculture Officer, Upleta. 3.2 On the fateful day, the respondent no.1 took sample of Hybrid Bajra seeds variety “Swaminath-2001” bearing Lot No.55-01-09- 212503 from the premises of the applicant no.1 for its analysis and sent it to Seed Testing Laboratory at Junagadh and in pursuance thereto, on 19.07.2006, the respondent no.1 received report from the said laboratory to the effect that the sample of Hybrid Bajra seeds variety “Swaminath-2001” was found to be sub-standard quality, therefore on the strength of the said report, the impugned complaint came to be filed before the competent criminal court for the alleged. 3.3 On filing of the complaint, the concerned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process upon the applicants, however for the reasons best known, the summons could not be served, which led to issuance of warrant upon the applicants, which was eventually served and in pursuance thereto, the applicants appeared before the court through their advocate. 3.4 As soon as the applicants appeared before the court on 26.02.2014, on the very same day, they have submitted an application under Section 16(2) of the Act, 1966 for the purpose of sending the sample to Central Food Testing Laboratory at Varansi for reanalysis. 3.5 The aforesaid application preferred by the applicants was opposed by the State by filing written statement. Thereafter after hearing the parties, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Upleta rejected the said application by an order dated 02.09.2014. 3.5 The aforesaid application preferred by the applicants was opposed by the State by filing written statement. Thereafter after hearing the parties, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Upleta rejected the said application by an order dated 02.09.2014. Therefore, the present application is preferred for quashment of the impugned complaint. 4. Learned advocate submitted that sample of Hybrid Bajra seeds variety “Swaminath-2001” was taken by the respondent no.1, which was sent to Seed Testing Laboratory at Junagadh for its analysis and on receipt of the report dated 19.07.2006 from the said laboratory, it was found out that the sample collected by the respondent no.1 was found to be sub-standard quality, therefore on the strength of the said report, the impugned complaint came to be filed before the competent criminal court for the alleged offences, wherein the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process, however initially the applicants could not be served and, hence, non-bailable warrant was issued, which was eventually executed and in pursuance thereto, the applicants appeared before the concerned court and immediately thereafter on the very dame day i.e. on 26.02.2014, they submitted an application under Section 16(2) of the Act, 1966 for the purpose of sending the sample to Central Food Testing Laboratory at Varansi for reanalysis, which is the mandatory requirement, however, the said application was rejected by the concerned Magistrate and, thereafter, the present quashing petition has been preferred before this Court. 5. Learned advocate submitted that in fact, at the time of submission of application, it was stated in a very categorical terms that in all circumstances, the applicants desire to exercise their valuable rights for sending the sample for reanalysis of the seeds as provided under Section 16(2) of the Act, 1966. 5. Learned advocate submitted that in fact, at the time of submission of application, it was stated in a very categorical terms that in all circumstances, the applicants desire to exercise their valuable rights for sending the sample for reanalysis of the seeds as provided under Section 16(2) of the Act, 1966. It is also stated that it seems that the validity of the seeds must have expired now and thus, analysis of seeds will not bring proper result but as law provides for statutory rights to the applicants – accused, the said application was filed for sending the sample for reanalysis from Central Seed Testing Laboratory at Varanasi, which was objected by the prosecution by way of filing written statement, wherein they have stated in a very categorical terms that the lifespan of the said seeds is 6 months from the date of packaged, therefore, since the said samples for reanalysis would become futile exercise as the period has already elapsed at the time of submission of said application and solely relying on the said aspect, concerned Magistrate has rejected the application preferred by the applicants by observing that the validity of the seeds has already expired and, hence, work of reanalysis could not have been carried out upon the said dead sample (seeds). It is also stated in the operative part of the order that at the time of submission of the application before the court, it was fairly conceded by the applicants that the period of limitation has already expired, therefore if at all, the said seeds are to be sent for reanalysis, in that event, correct result would not come. Learned advocate submitted that the provision of the Act, 1966 are purely based upon technical laws and the importance of the date of collection of sample from the vendor, supplyment of the articles and registration of complaint would make impact upon the case of the prosecution. Learned advocate further submitted that as per the mandatory provision of Section 16(2) of the Act, 1966, immediately within no time, the said right can be exercised and those rights are statutory rights and one cannot be deprived of his legitimate rights to utilize the said rights. Learned advocate further submitted that as per the mandatory provision of Section 16(2) of the Act, 1966, immediately within no time, the said right can be exercised and those rights are statutory rights and one cannot be deprived of his legitimate rights to utilize the said rights. Learned advocate submitted that in the case on hand, admittedly the complaint has been registered in the year 2008 and process of the case was served upon the applicant in the year 2014 and as soon as they appeared before the concerned Magistrate, immediately they have exercised their rights by preferring an application under Section 16(2) of the Act, 1966 and at the time of submission of the said application, they have come with a specific case that the period of limitation of said seeds has already elapsed, therefore if at all those sample is to be sent to Central Seed Testing Laboratory at Varanasi, resultant effect would be negative but as required under the law, the aforesaid application is preferred. 6. Learned advocate submitted that for the purpose of deciding the present application, certain dates are required to be noted. Learned advocate submitted that the so called incident of inspection by the respondent no.1 took place on 03.07.2006 and on that day, sample was taken and sent to Seed Testing Laboratory at Junagadh and on 19.07.2006, the report from the said laboratory was received, which clearly goes on to show that 34% germination was found in the seeds and on the strength of the said report, complaint has been registered on 08.10.2008, therefore, at the time of registration of the complaint itself, the sample is to be sent to Central Seeds Testing Laboratory for analysis within reasonable period but as per the statutory law, the said period has already elapsed when the complaint was filed by the complainant. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that considering the above facts, the impugned complaint pending before the concerned court requires to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that considering the above facts, the impugned complaint pending before the concerned court requires to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned advocate further submitted that the applicant no.2 is the manufacturing company of the said product and he has issued certificate on 08.10.2015 after verifying and scrutinizing all material available with the Company to the effect that Hybrid Bajra seeds variety “Swaminath-2001” is supplied to the applicant no.1 bearing Lot No.55-01-09-212503 to the Marketing Branch of the Company at Ahmedabad in the year 2005 and validity of the said deed has already expired at the time of registration of complaint and, hence, process cannot be permitted to be continued based upon the said set of evidence upon which reliance has been placed by the concerned Seeds Inspector. Learned advocate submitted that time and again in catena of decisions, view adopted by this Hon’ble Court is that the applicant has to avail statutory rights available to him despite the fact that the period of sending sample for reanalysis has expired, therefore, as soon as the warrant was executed, the applicant appeared before the concerned Magistrate and immediately thereafter, the application was preferred knowingfully well that the period of sending sample for reanalysis has already elapsed but as per the requirement of law, the aforesaid application was preferred with a view to avail rights. In support of the said contention, learned advocate has put reliance upon following decisions, (1) the judgment of this Court in case of Navkar Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Thro Ashwin Bogilal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2024 LawSuit (Guj) 55; (2) the order delivered by this Court in case of Jagdishbhai Vitthalbhai Kansagra Vs. P.P. Thumar (Agriculture Officer) & Anr. in Criminal Misc. Application No.14867/2015 vide order dated 20.04.2023; (3) the order delivered by this Court in case of Triveni Agro Tech Thro Munjhalsinh Pratapsinh Zala Vs. P.B. Khistariya & Anr. in Criminal Misc. Application No.2048/2017 vide order dated 07.12.2022; (4) the judgment in case of Avani Seeds Ltd. Thro Vasantbhai Ramchandra Khambete Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2021 LawSuit (Guj) 2031; (5) the judgment in case of Navkar Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Thro Keyur Ashwin Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2021 LawSuit (Guj) 5035; (6) the judgment in case Umiya Agro Centre & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2021 LawSuit (Guj) 2031; (5) the judgment in case of Navkar Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Thro Keyur Ashwin Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2021 LawSuit (Guj) 5035; (6) the judgment in case Umiya Agro Centre & Anr. Vs. Agriculture Officer Vevekkumar Navinchandra Ramani & Anr., reported in 2021 LawSuit (Guj) 5345; (7) the judgment in case of Khodiyar Agro Thro Trada Manlal Gandhubhai & Ors. Vs. Agriculture Officer Shri JD Gondaliya & Anr., reported in 2018 LawSuit (Guj) 24; (8) the judgment in case of Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported (2017) 1 SCC 367; (9) the judgment in case of Shree Mahalaxmi Seeds & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2014 (1) GLR 319 ; 8. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that considering the ratio enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in the aforesaid decisions, the present application may be allowed. 9. On the other hand, learned APP Mr. Dabhi has opposed the present application and submitted that extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favour of the present applicants in the facts of the present case as the documents upon which reliance has been placed by the applicants, have not been placed before the concerned Magistrate at the time of filing an application under Section 16(2) of the Act, 1966. Learned APP submitted that the applicant no.2 is the Manufacturing Company and the said Company itself has issued certificate specifically stating that the validity of the said documents is upto August, 2006 and the accused has not got any right to produce this kind of certificate at this juncture directly before this Court. Learned APP submitted that the veracity and genuineness of the said certificate is required to be tested before the competent court, who has got jurisdiction to try and conduct the proceeding and admittedly in the present case on hand, at the time of filing an application under Section 16(2) of the Act, 1966, the said document was not produced on record, therefore on the strength of certain facts narrated in the certificate at this juncture, decision cannot be taken by this Hon’ble Court. Learned APP submitted that it is an admittedly position of fact that when the application was preferred by the present application for the purpose of reanalysis of such product, the period of forwarding sample has already elapsed, therefore, there was no fun to forward the said sample for further reanalysis to the Central Seed Testing Laboratory and the said fact is fairly conceded by the applicants in their application itself, therefore, the concerned Magistrate has rightly and correctly rejected the application. It is, therefore, urged that considering the above facts of the case, the present application may be rejected. 10. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it is found out that on fateful day, the respondent no.1 took sample of Hybrid Bajra seeds variety “Swaminath-2001” bearing Lot No.55-01-09-212503 from the premises of the applicant no.1 for its analysis and sent it to Seed Testing Laboratory at Junagadh and on receipt of the report from the said laboratory, it would suggest that sample collected by the respondent no.1 was found to be sub-standard quality and, hence, the impugned complaint came to be filed before the competent criminal court for the alleged, wherein process was issued, which was not served to the applicants initially and, thereafter in the year 2014, the warrant issued by the court came to be served upon the applicants and in pursuance thereto, the applicants appeared before the court and on the very same day, they have submitted an application under Section 16(2) of the Act, 1966 for the purpose of sending the sample to Central Food Testing Laboratory at Varansi for reanalysis, however, the said application came to be rejected, which led to filing of present application before this Court for quashment of the impugned complaint. 11. 11. The bone of contention raised by learned advocate for the applicants is that the sample of seeds was taken on 03.07.2006 and sent to laboratory and the report of the Seed Analyst is dated 19.07.2006 and as stated above, the shelf life of the sample was 6 months and, hence, the complaint ought to have been filed within six months but instead thereof, the complaint was filed in the year 2008 i.e. on 08.10.2008, wherein though process was issued, it was admittedly not served upon the applicants and, thereafter in the year 2014, non-bailable warrant issued by the court concerned came to be served and in pursuance thereto, on 26.02.2014, the applicants appeared before the court concerned and on the very same day, an application under Section 16(2) of the Act, 1966 was filed by the applicants for sending the sample to Central Food Testing Laboratory at Varansi for reanalysis. At this stage, it is required to be noted that under Section 16(2) of the Act, 1966, after institution of above prosecution, the accused or the complainant, as the case 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 and such pari material provisions in other statutes have been held by various cases in number of decisions to be mandatory, vesting a valuable right either in the accused or the complainant as the case may be. Thus from the above facts, it seems that the applicants has availed rights vested under the law, which is mandatory in nature. 12. 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. (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. (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.]” 13. Section 16 of the Act, 1966 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 intact 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. 14. (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. 14. Considering the aforesaid provision of Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it seems that the complaint is required to be filed within stipulated time but in the facts of the present case, admittedly the impugned complaint is time barred because though the report of analyst was received on 19.07.2006, complaint was filed on 08.10.2008, which can be said to be time barred complaint. Further, the shelf-life of the sample was 6 months but till that time, the complaint had not been filed and immediately on the first day of their appearance before the concerned court, the applicants have availed their valuable rights by preferring an application under Section 16(2) of the Act, 1966, which was not considered considering the factual aspect of the matter, more particularly, time to send the sample for analysis had already got expired, however record shows that the valuable right of the applicants can be said to have been violated because of delay in initiation of launching prosecution against the applicants. Section 16(3) of the Act, 1966 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 Act, 1966. 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 Act, 1966. After the institution of the prosecution under the Act, 1966, the accused concerned – vendor or the complainant becomes entitle to apply before the Court for sending the samples to the Central Seeds Laboratory for its report. After the institution of the prosecution under the Act, 1966, the accused concerned – 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 sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Act, 1966 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 expired prior to the date of appearance of the applicants - accused in the Court. Not only that, even at the time of registration of the complaint before the court concerned, the shelf-life of the sample also got expired. 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 Act, 1966. 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. 15. At this stage, this Court would like to put reliance upon following decisions, 15.1 In the case of Shree Mahalaxmi Seeds & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2014 (1) GLR 319 , this Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.9, 20, 22 and 23 as under, “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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 re-analysis 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.” 15.2 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, this Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.10 and 20 as under, “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. 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.” 15.3 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, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.4 and 5 as under, “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. 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.” 16. 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.” 16. Considering the ratio enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in the aforesaid decisions, if the facts of the present case are considered, in that event, it would be found out that the sample of seeds was taken and sent to laboratory on 03.07.2006 and in pursuance thereto, the report of the Seed Analyst is dated 19.07.2006 and as stated above, the shelf-life of the sample was 6 months and, hence, the complaint ought to have been filed within 6 months but it was filed on 08.10.2008, which is time barred and despite issuance of process, it was not served to the applicants and, thereafter in the year 2014, non-bailable warrant issued by the court concerned came to be served and in pursuance thereto, on 26.02.2014, the applicants appeared before the court concerned and on the very same day, an application under Section 16(2) of the Act, 1966 was filed by the applicants for sending the sample to Central Food Testing Laboratory at Varansi for reanalysis. However at the time of filing of application under Section 16(2) of the Act, 1966, admittedly the shelf-life of the seeds in question expired way back in the month of January, 2007 and thus, the prosecution has launched after the expiry of shelf-life. The applicants certainly lost their valuable right of re-analysis under Section 16(2) of the Act, 1966. For the aforesaid reasons, the sample could not be reanalyzed 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. 17. Further in a catena of judicial pronouncements, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has considered the issue involved in the matter and 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 provision of Section 16(2) of the Act, 1966. 18. In the result, the present application is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No.756/2008 pending before the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Upleta are hereby quashed and set aside. All consequential proceedings pursuant thereto stand terminated. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.