Bombay High Court
Ramesh S/O Mahadevrao Hajare vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Kelod Ta. Saoner ... on 25 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4954-DB
1 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 427 OF 2020
Ramesh S/o Mahadevrao Hajare,
Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. House No. 1794, Block No.1&2,
Ward No.4, Kelod, Tah. Saoner,
Dist. Nagpur. APPLICANT
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Thr. Police Station Officer, Police
Station Kelod, Tah. Saoner,
Dist. Nagpur (Rural).
2. Manojkumar S/o Baburao Keche
Aged 49 years, Presently Serving as
Certification Officer O/o Divisional
Joint Director of Agriculture,
Administrative Building No.2, 7th
Floor, Civil Line, Nagpur 440001. NON-APPLICANTS
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. S.D. Borkute, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. A.M. Kadukar, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 25th MARCH, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
2 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt 1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned Counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
3. The present Application is preferred by the Applicant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with Crime No.123/2020 registered with Police Station Kelod, District Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"), Section 7 of the Seeds Act, 1966, Order 3 of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, Rules 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Seeds Rules, 1968, Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale & Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2010 and Sections 7 and 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing R.C.C. No. 187/2024.
4. The Applicant is the owner of "Shri Siddhivinayak Krishi Kendra" since 2001 at Kelod, Tahsil Saoner, District Nagpur. He is the sole proprietor of the said Krishi Kendra. The 3 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt Applicant has obtained the seeds license under the provision of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983. The Non-applicant No.2/Certification Officer O/o Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagpur who has lodged the report against the present Applicant on 14.05.2020. It was alleged that, he and his squad raided the Krishi Kendra of the Applicant and they found the Applicant unauthorizedly without licence and illegally having possession and stored 12 packets of BT-HTDT cotton seeds having label of "Navid Secunder Badsha" of Rs.8,760/- for sale to agriculturist. As per the allegations, the said seeds are prohibited hybrid cotton seeds, which is not permissible to sell in Maharashtra and thereby the Applicant has contraband the provisions of Rules 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale & Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2010 and Sections 7 and 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant, who submitted that in fact the FIR itself is not maintainable as in view of Section 15 of the Seeds Act, it is the complaint which requires to be filed by the person who is having grievance about the same. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the 4 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt decision of this Court in Criminal Application (APL) No. 418/2020 decided on 16.02.2026 and submitted that, this Court on the basis of the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Korra Srinivas Rao Krishnamurthy & Another V/s State of Maharashtra & Others, 2002 (Supp.2) Bom.C.R. 89, wherein it is held that for the offence punishable under the Seeds Act, 1968 and the Seeds Control Order, 1983 the Police Authorities cannot investigate the matter, it was the Complainant who has to file a complaint as the offence under the Seeds Act and the Seeds Control Order, 1983 provides the punishment less than three years imprisonment, and therefore, the same are non- cognizable offence, hence they cannot be investigated by the Police Authorities in view of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. The another ground raised by the learned Counsel for the Applicant is that, there is no authorization in the name of the present Complainant also and he is not authorized to lodge the prosecution. On that ground also, the Application deserves to be allowed.
5 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt
7. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that, considering the Applicant has contraband the provisions of Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale & Fixation of Sale Price) Act and the statements of various witnesses as well as the statement of the Complainant shows the involvement of the present Applicant in the alleged offence, and therefore, the Application deserves to be rejected.
8. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire investigation papers it reveals that the allegations levelled against the present Applicant is that he has stored the prohibited seeds which are prohibited in Maharashtra and thereby contraband the Order 3 of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, Rules 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Seeds Rules, 1968, Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale & Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2010 and Sections 7 and 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Applicant has also prayed for the quashing of the FIR as well as for the quashing of the charge-sheet.
6 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt
9. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Applicant that, the present Non-applicant No.2 who is the original Complainant is the Certification Officer O/o Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagpur and he is not authorized by the Controller, and therefore, he is not the authorized person to lodge the prosecution.
10. Section 2 of the Act of 2009 deals with definition and Section 2(ii) defines "Controller" means the Cotton Seed Controller appointed by the Government under Section 3. Section 3 pertains to 'Appointment of Controller' - The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint an officer, possessing such qualifications as may be prescribed, to be the Controller. From the plain reading of the said Section it could be gathered that it would require notification in the Official Gazette to appoint an Officer having requisite qualification to be the Controller. The powers of the Controller are enumerated in Section 4 of the Act of 2009. Section 15 of the Act of 2009 shows that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the Controller or any other officer authorized 7 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt by him for this purpose. In the present case, the FIR is lodged by the present Complainant who is serving as Certification Officer O/o Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagpur. Admittedly, there is no notification in his name issued or any authorization letter by the Controller for this purpose.
11. The Notification and the pleadings which requires to be filed on record to show that he is authorized person who is authorized by the Controller to lodge the prosecution or initiate any action against the present Applicant.
12. The another ground raised by the learned Counsel for the Applicant is that, in view of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the offences alleged for which the punishment provided is less than three years, and therefore, the same are non-cognizable offences, and therefore, the complaint is provided and the Non-applicant No.2 has lodged the FIR and the Police are not having authorities to investigate the matter. In view of that, the FIR deserves to be quashed.
13. In respect of offences under Rules 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Seeds Act, 1968 and Order 3 of the Seeds 8 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt (Control) Order 1983, the Applicant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Korra Srinivas Rao Krishnamurthy & Another (supra) wherein in paragraph No.17 this Court has observed as under :
"17. The contention of the learned Advocate for the respondents is that the expression "launch proceedings"
would include lodging of complaint either to the Court or to the Police Authorities. It is further contended that the expression "supplier" would include manufacturer, seller or any other dealer in the seeds. As far as the contention regarding the scope of the expression "supplier" is concerned, there cannot be any doubt that "supplier" would include all those persons dealing with the supply of seeds to the farmers. Whether supplier would also include manufacture or not would certainly depend upon the facts of each case. Unless it is shown that the manufacturer is also either directly or indirectly concerned with the supply of seeds to the farmers, he cannot be considered as "supplier" merely because he is manufacturer. In case if seeds are supplied by the manufacturer to a particular farmer or a person for the utilization thereof by such farmer or person in a particular land and the said persons instead of utilizing the said seeds, supplies the said seeds to a third person, then the manufacturer cannot be called as a supplier to the third person. However, it will be a matter of evidence, and will depend upon the facts of each case. But, the contention that the expression "launch proceedings" would include lodging of complaint with the police as well as Court is totally devoid of substance and the same runs counter to the provisions of the sub-rule (2). Sub-rule (2) of Rule 23-A specifically provides that the investigation is to be carried out by the Seed Inspector himself in respect of the complaints of the farmers regarding failure of crop due to defective quality of seeds. Sub-rule (2) itself shows that the Seed Inspector can launch the proceedings only after he comes to the conclusion that the failure of crop is due to quality of seeds, supplied to the farmers being less than the minimum standard notified by the Government. In other words, the provisions contained in Rule 23-A speak of 9 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt detail investigation by the Seed Inspector by himself on the complaint of farmer due to defective quality of the seeds and the conclusion to be arrived at in that regard by the Seed Inspector himself. Being so, there can be no scope for the police authorities for investigation in such cases. That apart, section 155(2) of Criminal Procedure Code specifically provides that the Police Authorities cannot investigate in the matter when the same is non cognizable. Once it is clear that the punishment imposable for the offence under the Seeds Act is, less than three years imprisonment, therefore, the same is non-cognizable offence, it cannot be, at the same time, said that merely taking shelter of Rule 23-A(2), the police authorities will get powers to investigate into the matter. The specific provisions in the Code deprives the police authorities to investigate in the matters relating to non-cognizable offences. Being so, the submission on the point of scope of expression "launching proceedings" in sub-rule (2) of Rule 23-A of the Seeds Rule, of the learned Advocate for the Seed Inspector, are absolutely devoid of substance. Besides, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners, sub-rule (2) specifically speaks about launching of proceedings in relation to the contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder and not relating to the offence which can be said to be punishable under the Indian Penal Code."
14. On the basis of this judgment it is the submission of the present Applicant that offences under the provisions of Seeds Act, 1968 and Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 Police Authorities cannot investigate in the matter. Offences under the Seeds Act and the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 for which punishment provided is less than three years imprisonment, and therefore, the same are non-cognizable offences and hence, it cannot be investigated by the Police authorities. According to the Applicant, the mechanism has been provided under Rule 10 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt 23-A of the Seeds Rule, 1968 to initiate complaint but in the present matter no such complaint has been lodged against the present Applicant, and therefore, in absence of any investigation at the instance of the Seed Inspector or any person as contemplated under the Seeds Act and Rules framed thereunder, no action can be initiated against the present Applicant.
15. In respect of the offence under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, from the perusal of the complaint as well as charge-sheet, there is absolutely no allegation that Applicant has done anything which is resulted into the discharge or emission of any environmental pollution in cases of standard prescribed in Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, which provides penalty for contravention of the provisions of the said Act. However, the allegations made in the complaint as well as material collected during investigation nowhere disclosed the basic ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act. Hence, the prosecution under the provisions of Environment Protection Act cannot be continued against the Applicant in the matter.
11 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt
16. In view of the observation of this Court in the case of Korra Srinivas Rao Krishnamurthy (supra), the Police Authorities cannot initiate criminal proceeding against the present Applicant and only remedy is available to him to file the proceeding under Rule 23-A of the Seeds Rules, 1968. Hence, the entire proceedings which are initiated against the Applicant is vitiated for the aforesaid reasons.
17. It is pertinent to note that, to attract the offences under the various enactments, the specific rule and procedure is required to be followed as stated therein. However, in the present case, merely on the basis of the FIR lodged by the Non-applicant No.2, the crime is registered against the present Applicant, which is without following the due procedure of law. The specific procedure incorporated under the various provisions and provided punishment less than three years imprisonment, and therefore, under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, same cannot be investigated by the Police Authorities.
12 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt
18. The Applicant has demonstrated that neither the offence is made out against him nor due procedure as provided under the statute is being followed in the matter.
19. As far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is concerned, which requires intention since inception. The ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC which requires to establish the offence are:
To constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC there has to be (1) Deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission; (2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or (3) The consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit.
20. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit to prosecute the present Applicant in the matter and continuation of the criminal proceeding against him would nothing but the abuse of the process of law, and therefore, the Application 13 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER i. Criminal Application is allowed.
ii. The First Information Report in connection with Crime No. 123/2020 registered with Police Station Kelod, District Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 7 of the Seeds Act, 1966, Order 3 of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, Rules 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Seeds Rules, 1968, Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale & Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2010 and Sections 7 and 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing R.C.C. No. 187/2024, are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the present Applicant.
21. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.) S.D.Bhimte Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/03/2026 19:23:55