Sections 7 (b) read with Section 19 of Seed Act, 1966( for short the Act) and Sub Clause (c) of the Clause 13 of Seed ( Control) Order, 1983.= seeds are of sub-standard and its germination of 63% does not conform to the prescribed minimum seed standard.= inordinate delay of launching prosecution by the complainant, the petitioner/A2 lost valuable right of requesting the Court to send the second sample to Central Seed Laboratory for analysis. = Since the shelf like of the seed has expired, the question of sending the same to Central Seed Laboratory for analysis does not arise and the petitioners are certainly entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.



Section 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 (1) 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 dispatch
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.
      Therefore, it is clear that due to inordinate delay of
launching prosecution by the complainant, the petitioner/A2 lost
valuable right of requesting the Court to send the second sample
to Central Seed Laboratory for analysis. Needless  to emphasise,
this procedural lapse casts dearer to the accused by taking away
his valuable right.  In the cited decision (1 supra), in similar
circumstances while quashing the proceedings launched against
the accused, the learned Judge of this Court observed thus:
It is clear from Section 16 of the Act that the petitioners
had the right to send the sample for analysis to the
Central Seed Laboratory.  It is a statutory right conferred
on the petitioners, which cannot be deprived.  Deprival of
the said right would certainly cause prejudice since the
valuable right to get the sample analysed is lost.  I am of
the considered view that the shelf life of the seed has
expired and there is no purpose in continuing the
prosecution as it amounts to abuse of process of the Court
as adumbrated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid
decisions.  The department itself has to be blamed for the
sorry state of affairs for launching the prosecution
belatedly and sleeping over the matter.  When once
prejudice is caused to the petitioners, they are certainly
entitled to invoke the inherent powers of this Court.
Hence, I disagree with the contentions advanced by the
learned Public Prosecutor. Since the shelf like of the seed
has expired, the question of sending the same to Central
Seed Laboratory for analysis does not arise and the
petitioners are certainly entitled to seek quashing of the
proceedings.
      The above decision squarely applies to the facts of the
present case.  Therefore, in the instant case also, the proceedings
are liable to be quashed.


THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO          

Criminal Petition No.88 of 2015

03-06-2015

Mukesh Kumar Mittal..... Petitioner

The State of Telangana Rep. by Asst. Director of Agriculture (Regular)  Mallial
Division & Agricultural Officer Kodimial Mandal & Seed Inspector Kodimial,
Karimnagar District.
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the
State of Telangana and State of A.P, Hyderabad. . Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner : Sri D. Krishna Murthy

Counsel for Respondent  : Public Prosecutor

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:
 1) 2002(2) ALD (Crl) 860 (AP)

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO        
Criminal Petition No.88 of 2015

ORDER:
        In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the
petitioner/A2 seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.637 of
2012 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Karimnagar.
02.      The factual matrix of the case is thus:
      The complainant is the Mandal Agricultural Officer-cum-Seed
Inspector, Kodimial Mandal, Karimnagar District.  A.1 is the
Proprietor of M/s Kaveri Fertilizer, Pesticides & Seeds, Kodimial
and A.2 is the Distributor and Producer of the seeds.
(a)     The case of the complainant is that on 28-06-2011 LW.2-
Mandal Agricultural Officer along with mediators inspected the
shop of A.1 and drawn sample of Bt-II Cotton Seed variety Rudra
( PRCH-504) bearing Lot No.051120256, whose seed Producer is  
A.2, under cover of panchanama in the presence of LWs. 4 and 5
by following due procedure and he sent the sample to Assistant
Director of Agriculture, DNA Finger Printing Lab, Sameti Complex,
Hyderabad, on 28-06-2011 for analysis.   The analyst sent his
Report stating that the sample seeds are of sub-standard and its
germination of 63% does not conform to the prescribed minimum
seed standard.   After receiving the analyst report from the Seed
Testing Laboratory on 04-08-2011, LW.3Mandal Agricultural
Officer verified the stock register of A.1 in the presence of LWs. 6
and 7 and seized the record as per Form-IV under the cover of
panchanama and the proposals were submitted to the
Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad, by the Joint
Director of Agriculture, Karimnagar, for prosecution and thereafter
the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad,
instructed to launch the prosecution against Accused Nos. 1 and 2
as per the Proceedings No. SR Cell (2) 693/2011, dt. 31.12.2011.
Hence, the complaint against the accused for the offences under
Sections 7 (b) read with Section 19 of Seed Act, 1966( for short
the Act) and Sub Clause (c) of the Clause 13 of Seed ( Control)
Order, 1983.
03.     Denying the complaint allegations, the learned counsel for
petitioner/A.2 sought for quashment of the proceedings on the
main plank of argument that the complaint in this case was filed
on 07-02-2012 and the learned Additional Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Karimnagar, took cognizance of the case on 21-06-
2012 and numbered as C.C. 637 of 2012 and served summons  
directing the accused to appear before the Court on 20.01.2015.
But, in the meanwhile, the shelf life of the cotton seed,  which was
only 9 months from the date of testing, was only upto 02-03-2012
and therefore as on the date of receiving summons from the
Court, the petitioner/A2 has lost valuable right under Section
16(2) of the Act to request the Court for sending the second
sample for analysis and hence, the continuation of the
proceedings will amount to abuse of process of law.  He relied
upon the decision reported in Mallela Laxmi and others vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh  and submitted that in this similar
circumstances, the Honble High Court was pleased to quash the
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
04.      Heard.
05.     The admitted facts are that on 28-06-2011 LW.2 visited the
shop of A.1 and secured the sample of cotton seed i.e., Bt-II
Cotton Seed Rudra (PRCH-504) in the presence of LWs. 4 and 5
and sent one sample for analysis on the same day.  The Analyst
Report dated 26-07-2011 was received which shows that the seed
germination of 63% does not conform to the prescribed minimum
seed standard. Then, the prosecution was launched by the
complainant on 07-02-2012 before Additional Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Karimnagar, but cognizance was taken by the Court
on 21-06-2012 and summons were served directing the accused
to appear on 15-01-2015.
(a)     Then a perusal of the copy of Truthful Label issued by
Pravardhan Seeds Private Limited i.e., A.2 would show that B.T
Hybrid Cotton variety PRCH 504 Bt-II was tested on 02-06-2011
and notified its validity upto 02-03-2012.  So, as rightly pointed
out by the learned counsel for petitioner, by the time he was
directed to appear before the trial Court on 15.01.2015, the shelf
life of the sample seed was expired long back.  In this regard,
Section 16 of the Seeds Act, 1966 reads thus:
Section 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 (1) 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 dispatch
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.
      Therefore, it is clear that due to inordinate delay of
launching prosecution by the complainant, the petitioner/A2 lost
valuable right of requesting the Court to send the second sample
to Central Seed Laboratory for analysis. Needless  to emphasise,
this procedural lapse casts dearer to the accused by taking away
his valuable right.  In the cited decision (1 supra), in similar
circumstances while quashing the proceedings launched against
the accused, the learned Judge of this Court observed thus:
It is clear from Section 16 of the Act that the petitioners
had the right to send the sample for analysis to the
Central Seed Laboratory.  It is a statutory right conferred
on the petitioners, which cannot be deprived.  Deprival of
the said right would certainly cause prejudice since the
valuable right to get the sample analysed is lost.  I am of
the considered view that the shelf life of the seed has
expired and there is no purpose in continuing the
prosecution as it amounts to abuse of process of the Court
as adumbrated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid
decisions.  The department itself has to be blamed for the
sorry state of affairs for launching the prosecution
belatedly and sleeping over the matter.  When once
prejudice is caused to the petitioners, they are certainly
entitled to invoke the inherent powers of this Court.
Hence, I disagree with the contentions advanced by the
learned Public Prosecutor. Since the shelf like of the seed
has expired, the question of sending the same to Central
Seed Laboratory for analysis does not arise and the
petitioners are certainly entitled to seek quashing of the
proceedings.
      The above decision squarely applies to the facts of the
present case.  Therefore, in the instant case also, the proceedings
are liable to be quashed.
06)     In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in C.C.No.637 of 2012 on the file of Additional Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar, are quashed against the
petitioner/Accused No.2.
      As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_____________________  
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J    
Date: 03.06.2015 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.