2014 (6) TMI 1058 - HC - Indian Laws

Certification regarding the germination quality and the specification - It is the case of the prosecution that the Seed Analyst submitted a report in respect of the sample drawn from a specific lot of seeds holding that they do not conform to the standard of specification regarding germination and purity as specified under Section 6(a) of the Act - time limitation under Section 468(2) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - This Court find that the prosecution has failed to convince this Court on both aspects regarding the certificate issued by the Karnataka State Seed Certification Agency on 11.05.2012 being valid as on the date when the sample was drawn by the complainant on 21.07.2012 as drawing of the sample itself is erroneous. It is further seen that the prosecution has also failed to demonstrate that the complaint is filed within the period of limitation in as much as the laboratory report is dated 26.10.2012 and the complaint is filed on 19.06.2013 beyond the mandatory period of six months within which the complaint was required to be filed - the complaint falls short of requirement and the same is required to be quashed. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the complaint filed under Section 7(b) of the Seeds Act, 1966.
2. Compliance with the period of limitation under Section 468(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis:
1. The accused, who is the Manager of a seeds corporation, sought to quash the proceedings initiated against him under Section 7(b) of the Seeds Act. The complaint alleged non-conformity of groundnut seeds to specified germination and purity standards. The Seed Analyst's report supported this claim, leading to the filing of a private complaint. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offense under Section 19(a) of the Act. The accused contended that the complaint was time-barred, as it was filed beyond the six-month limitation period from the date of the Seed Analyst's report. However, the court found the prosecution's case lacking in proving the validity of the certification agency's certificate and the timeliness of the complaint filing. Consequently, the complaint was quashed.

2. The petitioner argued that the complaint exceeded the statutory limitation of six months from the date of the offense detection. They claimed that the seeds had been tested by an authorized agency, and the certificate issued covered the testing period. The court, after considering arguments from both sides, concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the validity of the certificate at the time of sample collection and the timely filing of the complaint. As a result, the complaint did not meet the necessary requirements and was quashed by the court.