Bombay High Court
Vijaykumar Laxmanbhai Chaudhary vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Mul Tah. Mul ... on 10 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4288-DB
Judgment
4 apl1033.21
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.1033 OF 2021
Vijaykumar Laxmanbhai Chaudhary,
a/a 40 years, occupation: business,
r/o Balwant Nagar, Solaiya, tahsil Mansa,
district Gandhinagar, (Gujrat). ..... Applicant.
:: V E R S U S ::
1. The State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer, Police Station,
Mul, tahsil Mul, district Chandrapur.
2. Prashant Govindrao Kasrale,
a/a 30 years, occupation: service,
r/o Hattimahal, tahsil Radhanagari,
district Kolhapur,
Mob.No.9420287677. ..... Non-applicants.
================================
Shri A.A.Dhawas, Counsel for the Applicant.
Shri A.M.Joshi, APP for NA No.1/State.
None for NA No.2.
================================
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE : 10/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Admit. Heard finally by consent.
.....2/-
Judgment 4 apl1033.21 2
2. By this application, the present applicant is seeking quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.245/2020 registered with non-applicant No.1 police station for offences under Sections 420 of the IPC and under Sections 7(a), 7(b), 14, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Seeds Act, 1968 and under Section 3 of the Seeds Control Order 1983 and under Sections 2, 4(1)
(i)(ii), 4(b), 4(ii), 5(1), 5(2), 12, 11(1)(2)(6) of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009 and under Sections 7, 8, 15, and 16 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1955 and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC No.54/2021 pending on the file of learned JMFC, Mul, district Chandrapur.
3. The crime is registered on the basis of a report dated 3.5.2020 lodged by non-applicant No.2 (the complainant) on allegations that he is The Taluka Inspector Officer and on 3.5.2020, he received a secret information that at mauza Bembal, taluka Mule, district Chandrapur, within .....3/-
Judgment 4 apl1033.21 3 territorial jurisdiction of Panchayat Samiti at Mul, one person, namely Rafique Shaikh Abdul Rashid, was carrying prohibited seeds B$III/HTBT/RRI in truck bearing registration No.MH-31/CQ/9882 in suspicious circumstances. Therefore, he intercepted the said truck and he found the truck driver is in possession of 3500 packets of cotton seeds. The said seeds were brought unauthorizedly and illegally and it was found that those seeds were banned. Therefore, panchanama was drawn in presence of panchas and those seeds packets were seized. Total muddemal of Rs.29,55,000/- came to be seized along with the truck.
On the basis of the said report, the police have registered the crime against the applicant and other co- accused.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of taluka Mansa, district .....4/-
Judgment 4 apl1033.21 4 Gandhinagar (Gujarat) and businessman by profession. He has no criminal antecedents against him. He submitted that merely on suspicion, he was arrested. The FIR is not provided under provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966. In view of that, the FIR is not maintainable.
He submitted that in view of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act of 2009, the procedure narrated is also not followed by the complainant. The samples are not obtained in view of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act.
Thus, due to non-following of the procedure, the application deserves to be allowed.
He further submitted that as far as role of the applicant is concerned, investigation papers nowhere show either that he is manufacturer or dealer or supplier of the said seeds. Merely on suspicion, he is implicated in the alleged offence.
.....5/-
Judgment 4 apl1033.21 5 In view of that the application deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned APP for the State has strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that considering the applicant was found in possession of the Cotton Seeds, in contravention of provisions, the application deserves to be rejected.
6. As far as the contention of learned APP for the State is concerned, the complainant is an authorized Officer. 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,' which states that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint an officer, possessing such qualifications as may be prescribed, to be the Controller.
.....6/-
Judgment 4 apl1033.21 6
7. From plain reading of the said Sections, 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 by him for his behalf.
8. In the present case, the FIR is lodged by the Taluka Agricultural Inspector.
9. Thus, it is crystal clear that, the complaint is neither filed by the Controller nor any other Officer authorized by the Controller for this purpose. Admittedly, the FIR is filed by the complainant who is serving as The Taluka Inspector Officer. No notification is on record showing he is authorized by the Controller.
.....7/-
Judgment 4 apl1033.21 7
10. The pleadings filed on record nowhere reveal that the complainant is authorized by the Controller to file and initiate the proceedings i.e. FIR.
11. Thus, admittedly, the complainant is not the competent person who can file the said FIR.
12. This Court has already dealt with this issue in the case of Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in MANU/MH/1252/2015:
2015 ALL MR (Criminal) 2213.
13. The ground raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that in view of the procedure given under Section 15 of the Seeds Act, 1966, it deals with the procedure to be followed by the Seed Inspector. In view of Section 15, no opportunity was granted to the applicant to reanalyze the sample. In view of Section 15(1)(b) of the Seeds Act, 1966, it deals with the manner in which the samples are to be taken, which reads as under:
.....8/-
Judgment 4 apl1033.21 8 "15(1)(b). except in special cases provided by rules made under this Act, take three representative samples in the prescribed manner and mark and seal or fasten up each sample in such manner as its nature permits."
"15(2) When samples of any seed of any notified kind or variety are taken under sub- section (1), the Seed Inspector shall-
(a) deliver one sample to the person from whom it has been taken;
(b) send in the prescribed manner another sample for analysis to the Seed Analyst for the area within which such sample has been taken; and
(c) retain the remaining sample in the prescribed manner for production in case any legal proceedings are taken or for analysis by the Central Seed Laboratory under sub-section (2) of section 16, as the case may be."
"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 (2) 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.
.....9/-
Judgment 4 apl1033.21 9 (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 (a) 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."
14. Thus, in view of Section 15(1)(b) of the Seeds Act, 1966, it was obligatory on the part of the Seed Inspector to obtain three representative samples.
15. In the present case, there is non-compliance of Section 15(1)(b). The ground raised by the applicant in the present application is that the opportunity for reanalysis the sample is not given to him.
.....10/-
Judgment 4 apl1033.21 10
16. Another ground raised by the applicant is that in view of Section 15, the complaint is to be filed by the authorized Officer. Under Section 15, when the Seed Inspector seizes any record register or any other material, he should inform the Magistrate and take his order for which he can use Form IV. Section 14 of the Seeds Act provides for the powers of Seed Inspector and Section 15 of the Seeds Act provides for the procedure to be followed by the Seed Inspector in taking samples. As per the provisions under Section 14(1)(c) of the Seeds Act, 1966, the Seed Inspector is empowered to search or inspect the premises any time, where the Seed Inspector has reason to believe that such offence has been committed. As per Section 14(1)(d) of the Seeds Act, the Seed Inspector may examine any record, register, document or any other material object found in any place and if he has reason to believe that the record, register, etc., may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under the Act, he may issue a seizure order in Form IV of the Seeds Rules, 1968 .....11/-
Judgment 4 apl1033.21 11 and seized the records. As per Section 14(1)(e) of the Seeds Act, 1966, the Seed Inspector can exercise such other powers as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act or any rule made thereunder.
17. Section 420 of I.P.C. provides for punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing a person to deliver the property. It clearly requires that a person to be prosecuted for the offence under the said Section has necessarily to do an act which would amount to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. The necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. is dishonestly inducing the person cheated and to deliver the property or valuable security. Undisputedly on the consideration of the F.I.R. in question it does not disclose any fact which can constitute a prima facie case establishing an inducement for the sale of seeds in question.
.....12/-
Judgment 4 apl1033.21 12
18. Learned Counsel for the applicant has rightly pointed out that the Applicant has been deprived of the opportunity to get the sample tested in terms of Sub Section 1(b) of Section 15 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and thus the applicant was deprived from getting the sample tested and thus there is a contravention of Section 15(1)(2).
19. Thus, a fair opportunity was not granted to the present applicant for sending the sample as only one sample was obtained by the Taluka Inspector Officer and no sample was available for the applicant to send it for reanalyzes. Moreover, in view of Section15, the Seed Inspector or the authorized person has to file the compliant and not the FIR. The Police authorities cannot investigate the complaints of the above nature and it is only the Seed Inspector can file complaint in view of Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
.....13/-
Judgment 4 apl1033.21 13
20. Thus, the applicant has made out the case that there is a contravention of the provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966 as the complaint is not filed and the FIR is lodged i.e. also not by the authorized Officer and no sample was available for reanalysis after filing of the complaint by the complainant.
21. In view of that, the applicant has made out the case. The continuation of the complaint against the provisions of law will be an abuse of process of law and, therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER (1) The criminal application is allowed. (2) FIR in connection with Crime No.245/2020 registered with non-applicant No.1 police station for offences under Sections 420 of the IPC and under Sections 7(a), 7(b), 14, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Seeds Act, 1968 and under Section 3 of .....14/-
Judgment 4 apl1033.21 14 the Seeds Control Order 1983 and under Sections 2, 4(1)(i)
(ii), 4(b), 4(ii), 5(1), 5(2), 12, 11(1)(2)(6) of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009 and under Sections 7, 8, 15, and 16 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1955 and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC No.54/2021 pending on the file of learned JMFC, Mul, district Chandrapur are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of present applicant Vijaykumar Laxmanbhai Chaudhary.
Application stands disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) !! BrWankhede !! Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 16/03/2026 10:05:55