9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the seeds were checked by the concerned Seeds Inspector, he suspected the seeds to be sub-standard ones, that is to say, the seeds did not conform to the minimum limit of germination and purity as specified under Section 6 of the Act. As such, following the procedure prescribed, the respondent after dividing the sample seeds in three lots sent one sample lot to the Seeds Analyst, another lot was retained by him and the third lot was given to the petitioner. In all these cases, after the receipt of the report of the seeds Analyst that the germination percentage of these seeds is below the norms fixed and as such the purity is affected it was held that the seeds are sub-standard ones. Thereafter, the respondent has issued notices to the petitioners which have been replied to in most of the cases and being not satisfied with the reply the respondent has proceeded to file the criminal complaints under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. against the petitioners alleging the commission of the offence under Section 6 of the Act. 3. The concerned Courts have taken cognizance of the offence, registered the cases and issued process against the accused. The accused have appeared before the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rinted forms it is apparent that only certain basic informations are mentioned therein and not the required reasons as to why these seeds were found to be sub-standard or not in conformity with the minimum standard prescribed. It is submitted that, since the statute itself provides a right to the petitioners to get the seeds once again tested by the Central Seed Laboratory whose report is actually final indicates that for the satisfaction of the Court the minimum analysis details are to be mentioned in these reports. Hence, in the absence of such reports, the present prosecutions are illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. It is also contended that, since the learned Magistrates or the learned Sessions Judges have not taken into account these aspects, their act of taking cognizance appears to be mechanical in nature without application of mind. All these among other grounds it is contended that these are fit cases to quash the proceedings. 8. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State argued in support of the prosecution. At the outset, he contended that, as these petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for quashin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is to be seen that the report of the local Seed Testing Laboratory is not final and conclusive so as to hold the petitioners guilty of 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 sample to the Central Seed Laboratory for retesting or rechecking the veracity of the report of local laboratory and as per Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Act, this report of the Central Seed Testing Laboratory supersedes the report of the local Seed Testing Laboratory. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Indian Seeds Minimum Certification Manual itself prescribes the validity period of such certificates is nine months and as is not much in dispute, the shelf-life of seeds is taken as nine months. Any prosecution has to be filed within that period of nine months. If it is not done, then, opportunity of challenging and rebutting the local Seed Testing Laboratory by submitting the seeds beyond the said nine months to the Central Seed Testing Laboratory would be lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defence. In these circumstances, the High Court was right in concluding that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court if the prosecution was continued against the accused persons. The High Court rightly quashed the criminal complaint'. Though the case with which the Apex Court was dealing arises from the Insecticides Act, the principles laid down in the said pronouncement are clearly attracted to this case also as the provisions of both Acts are on par with each other regarding this aspect. Hence, the second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that, because of delay and laches, prejudice is caused to his case and thereby the valuable right to defend has been taken away, has to be accepted. 9. In the result, it is to be held that the present prosecution is barred by limitation as well as in contravention of the mandatory provisions including the fundamental rights of the accused of giving opportunity to defend has been taken away . The finding and observation in the latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gupta Chemicals Private Limited and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., 2002(2) FAC 148 (SC) is worth noting. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icultural Development Office, Akola, Cri. A. No. 878 of 1986, DD: 7-11-1989 (Bom.) has considered these provisions of the Act and almost in the similar circumstances under the Act has held that, as the statutory rights of the accused are affected, the prosecution is not maintainable. 10. In the present case also, having looked into the provisions of the Act especially Section 8 which provides for setting up a certification agency by the Central or the State Government and Section 9 of the Act which provides for grant of certificate by the certification agency as to the seeds conform to the prescribed standard as well as Rule 17 of the Rules make it quite clear that as the certificate issued by the certification agency protects the accused from any prosecution as long as the certificate is valid and operative. In all these present cases, the seizure of the seeds is within the expiry of the certification period and filing of the present complaints beyond the period prescribed under the certificate clearly, in my view, defeats the very object of obtaining the certificate as well as the statutory rights provided to the petitioners and hence such prosecution is to be held as illegal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
