2022 (2) TMI 1248 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of complaint without the Company being made an accused in the proceedings - sub-standard seeds - germination of 81% as against the prescribed germination of 98.6% - claim of the petitioner that the report of the said analyst was never furnished to him - violation of Section 16 of the Act. Whether the complaint was maintainable without the Company being made an accused in the proceedings? - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the Company is not made a party in these proceedings which is in violation of Section 21. The proceedings without, at the outset, the Company being made a party would not be maintainable. The issue in this regard need not detain this Court for long or delve deeper in to the matter as identical provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 have been interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of ANEETA HADA VERSUS GODFATHER TRAVELS TOURS (P.) LTD. 2012 (5) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that there can be no vicarious liability unless there is a prosecution against the company. Whether the entire proceedings get vitiated on account of prejudice and violation of Section 16 of the Act? - HELD THAT - The date of collection of sample is 12-11-2020. The Seed Analyst gave his report on 4-12-2020. The life of the seed was till 18-02-2021. All these are undisputed facts. After the life of the seed itself had expired by the time prosecution was launched which was on 16-03-2021 the right of the accused to get the seed re-assessed by the Central Seed Laboratory under sub-section (2) of Section 16 is rendered illusory. An important right of the accused is taken away by the callous action on the part of the prosecution. If the life of the seed had expired, the seed cannot be sent for a second opinion by the Central Seed Laboratory. It ought to have been done prior to the expiry of life of the seed. Therefore, taking away the right under subsection (2) of Section 16 has caused great prejudice to the petitioner or even the Company against whom the notice is issued. It is trite law that procedural violation causing prejudice will have to be construed strictly and it cannot be said that trial should continue notwithstanding the right under sub-section (2) of Section 16 being taken away by indolence of the respondent/complainant - both with regard to the Company not being made a party and the entire proceedings getting vitiated on account of prejudice being caused to the accused, this is a fit case where this Court has to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner, failing which such proceedings would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. The Criminal Petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the complaint without the Company being made an accused.
2. Violation of Section 16 of the Seeds Act, 1966, and resultant prejudice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Complaint Without the Company Being Made an Accused:

The petitioner, who is the Managing Director of Syngenta India Limited, challenged the proceedings initiated under Sections 6(a) and 19(a) of the Seeds Act, 1966. The petitioner contended that the Company should have been made a party to the proceedings, as required by Section 21 of the Act, which deals with offences by companies. Section 21 stipulates that both the company and the person in charge of the company at the time of the offence must be made parties to the proceedings. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited (2012) 5 SCC 661, which held that for maintaining prosecution under similar provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arraigning the company as an accused is imperative. The court concluded that the proceedings without the company being made a party are not maintainable and thus vitiated. Therefore, this point was answered in favor of the petitioner.

2. Violation of Section 16 of the Seeds Act, 1966, and Resultant Prejudice:

The seeds in question were collected on 12-11-2020, and the Seed Analyst's report, which declared the seeds as "sub-standard," was prepared on 4-12-2020. The shelf life of the seeds expired on 18-02-2021. The show cause notice was issued only after the expiry of the seed's shelf life, and the complaint was registered on 6-03-2021. Section 16 of the Act mandates that the Seed Analyst's report must be furnished to the person from whom the sample was taken, and the accused must be given an opportunity to get the sample re-tested by the Central Seed Laboratory. However, this right was rendered illusory as the seed's shelf life had expired by the time the prosecution was initiated.

The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid Private Limited (1999) 8 SCC 190, which emphasized the importance of expeditious prosecution to preserve the accused's right to have the sample re-tested. The delay in initiating prosecution deprived the petitioner of this valuable right, causing significant prejudice. The court also cited its own decision in The Managing Director, M/S. Anup Product Limited v. State of Karnataka ILR 2001 KAR 5216, which reiterated that procedural violations causing prejudice must be construed strictly.

Given the procedural lapses and the resultant prejudice to the petitioner, the court held that the entire proceedings were vitiated. The court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the Criminal Petition, quashing the impugned proceedings in C.C. No. 7/2021 pending before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Byadgi, Haveri District, against the petitioner. The court also directed the Registry to transmit a copy of the order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, for necessary steps regarding the observations made during the order.