Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S. Eagle Seeds And Biotech Limited ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2020
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
Bench: Prakash Shrivastava
1 MCRC No.26818/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT
INDORE
M.Cr.C.No.26818/2020
(M/s. Eagle Seeds & Biotech Ltd Vs. State of M.P.)
INDORE: Dated 25.08.2020
Shri S.C.Bagadiya, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri R.
Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri.Amol Shrivastava, learned counsel for
respondent/State.
Heard through video conferencing.
ORDER
By this petition filed u/S.482 of the Cr.P.C, the petitioner has made a prayer for quashing the FIR bearing No.0240/2020 registered at P.S. Kshipra, Tehsil Sanwer, Distt. Indore. [2] From the petitioner's premises, 15 samples of soyabean seed were taken on 19/5/2020 by the Seed Inspector and Senior Agriculture Extension Officer, Development Block, Sanwer, District Indore. The samples were sent to Seed Testing Laboratory, Sagar and as per the report received from the laboratory 14 samples were found to be sub standard and below the prescribed parameter, therefore, the Licensing Officer and Deputy Director, Agriculture Welfare and Agriculture Development, Indore had sought the reply of the petitioner within seven days. The reply of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory, therefore, FIR No.0240/2020 dated 27/7/2020 has been lodged in the Police Station Kshipra alleging commission of offence u/Ss.3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
[3] Learned counsel for petitioner submits that u/S.19 of the Seeds Act, 1966, penalty has been prescribed and it is a non cognizable offence, therefore, police cannot register FIR. He further submits that the case is squarely covered by order dated 25/10/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.18348/2017 in the case 2 MCRC No.26818/2020 of Nirmal Seed's Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of MP and others wherein FIR with identical allegation has been quashed. He further submits that Sec.3(1) of the E.C. Act is limited in scope, therefore, in the Seeds (Control) Order, the standard of the Seed cannot be prescribed.
[4] Controverting the argument learned counsel for State has submitted that the judgment in the case of Nirmal Seeds (supra) stands on a different footing and that in the present case there is clear allegation of violation of Seeds (Control) Order, therefore, offence is made out against the petitioner. Hence, at this stage FIR cannot be quashed. [5] I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
[6] As per the FIR allegation, 14 out of 15 samples of soyabean seed collected from the premises of the petitioner have been found to be substandard. In the FIR there is clear allegation of violation of provisions of Seeds Act 1966, Seeds (Control) Order 1983 and commission of offence u/Ss. 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
[7] Clause 8-A of the Seeds (Control) Order 1983 as amended by G.S.R.444(E) dated 26 th July, 2006 reads as under:-
"8A. Dealers to ensure certain standards in respect of seeds:
Every dealer of seeds in notified kind or variety or other than notified kind or variety of seeds shall ensure that the standards of quality of seeds claimed by him shall conform to the standards prescribed for the notified kind or variety of seeds under Section 6 of the Seeds Act, 1966 (54 of 1966) and any other additional standards relating to size, colour and content of the label as may be specified."3 MCRC No.26818/2020
[8] Sec.6 of the Seeds Act 1966 empowers the Central government to satisfy minimum limits of germination which reads as under:-
"6- Power to specify minimum limits of germination and purity, etc.-- The Central Government may, after consultation with the Committee and by notification in the Official Gazette, specify--
[a] the minimum limits of germination and purity with respect to any seed of any notified kind or variety;
[b] the mark or label to indicate that such seed conforms to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under clause (a) and the particulars which such mark or label may contain."
[9] In the present case, there is a clear allegation that the sample of seeds collected from the petitioner's premises were found to be of less than prescribed limit of germination in the report of the Seed Testing Laboratory. The Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 has been issued by the Central Government exercising the powers conferred by Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Sec.7 of the Essential Commodities Act provides for the penalties and punishment for violation of any control order made u/S.3 and reads as under:-
"7. Penalties.--(1) If any person contravenes any order made under section 3,--
[a] he shall be punishable.--
(i) of sub-section(2) of that section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine, and
(ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine:
[Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months;] 4 MCRC No.26818/2020 [b] any property in respect of which the order has been contravened shall be forfeited to the Government;
[c] any package, covering or receptacle in which the property is found and any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying the commodity shall, if the court so orders, be forfeited to the Government."
[10] Having regard to the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the FIR contained the material which form the basis of allegation that the petitioner has committed offence u/Ss.3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
[11] So far as the judgment in the case of Nirmal Seeds (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner is concerned, in that case there was no allegation in the FIR in respect of violation of Seeds (Control) Order 1983. Hence, in the case of Nirmal Seeds (supra) the co-ordinate bench of this court had found that:-
"10. As regards the FIR lodged for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, there is nothing in the contents of the FIR that the applicant has violated any rules prescribed under Seeds (Control) Order 1983, therefore, there was no case made out for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act against the applicant. It is found that the offence disclose in the first information report is non-cognizable, therefore, police authorities are not entitled to investigate in the matter."
[12] In the present case there is clear allegation in the FIR in respect of violation of seed control order. Hence, the present case stands on different footing and the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the order passed in the case of Nirmal Seeds (supra).
[13] So far as reliance of the petitioner on Sec.19 of the Seeds Act 1966 is concerned, the said provision inter-alia provides for penalty for contravention of any provisions of the Act or Rule made thereunder. It does not deal with the offence relating to 5 MCRC No.26818/2020 violation of the Seeds (Control) Order issued u/S.3 of the Essential Commodities Act.
[14] Even otherwise the scope of quashing the FIR in exercise of the power u/S.482 of the Cr.P.C is very limited. Once on the basis of the allegation made in the FIR, an offence is made out, then such a limited power to quash the FIR need not be exercised.
[15] Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that no case is made out for quashing the FIR in question. Hence, the M.Cr.C is dismissed.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE vm Digitally signed by Bhuneshwar Datt Date: 2020.08.26 15:49:56 -07'00'