Telangana High Court
G. Anil Kumar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 6 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11248 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in CC No.624 of 2022 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapally, for the offences under Sections 7(b) read with 19 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and sub clause (c) of the Clause 13 of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983.
2. Heard Sri E.V. Pushpa Vardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner-accused No.2 is a Distributor of seeds and is alleged to have supplied sub- standard sees.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, being the Distributor, cannot be held liable for any alleged low percentage of seed germination when the seeds were distributed in sealed and original packaging condition without any other interference or tampering. Thus, imposing liability on the 2 ETD,J Crl.P. No.11248 of 2025 petitioner, who is a Distributor of the sealed packets, amounts to abuse of process of law. He further submitted that whatever the manufacturer has forwarded, the petitioner has distributed the same to its dealer without any intention to defraud or cause harm to the consumers and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v. Chief Agricultural Officers, Ferozepur and another 1 and the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench in Devanand and another v. State of Karnataka 2.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner-accused No.2 is a Distributor of M/s. Coromandal (I) Limited and accused No.1 is a Dealer and that they are liable to be prosecuted for the above said offences.
6. Perused the record.
7. The contents of the charge sheet disclose that the Seed Inspector has visited the premises of accused No.1 for inspection of stock of cotton seeds exhibited for sale and has drawn the samples, sent them for analysis and on receiving the report, the said seed 1 1990 (Supp) SCC 111 2 2025 KHC-K:750 3 ETD,J Crl.P. No.11248 of 2025 samples were found to be pertaining to the variety of PUJA (NCS-
456) BG-II LOT No.015106084, contained 58% germination only and does not confirm the prescribed standards of germination i.e. 75%. Thus, the said copy was served on accused No.1 and thereafter served show cause notice to the Dealer-accused No.1, Distributor- accused No.2 and Marketer-accused No.3. The petitioner herein is accused No.2. Thus, the complaint was lodged by the Seed Inspector before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, for the offence under Sections 7(b) read with Section 19 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and Section 13(c) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983.
8. Section 7(b) of the Seeds Act and Section 13(c) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:
Section 7(b) of the Seeds Act:
"7. Regulation of sale of seeds of notified kinds or varieties:- No person shall, himself or by any other person on his behalf, carry on the business of selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of any notified kind or variety, unless-
(a) xxxx
(b) such seed conforms to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under clause (a) of section 6;
4 ETD,J Crl.P. No.11248 of 2025
(c) xxxx
(d) xxxx"
Order 13(c) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983:
"13. Inspection and punishment: (1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) Where any seed is seized by an Inspector under this clause, he shall forthwith respect of such seizure to a Magistrate where-upon the provisions of sections 457 and 458 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall, so far as may be, apply to the custody and disposal of such seed."
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in Vuda Nagesh v. State of Telangana (1 supra), In the said case, the prosecution was launched against the accused therein for the offences under the provisions of IPC and the Essential Commodities Act ignoring the Seeds Act, which was challenged before this Court and a coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that the Seeds Act and the Seeds Rules made thereunder do not in any manner prohibit any prosecution with regard to 'seeds' under any other enactment other than the Seeds Act, 1966 and that there is no express or implied provision in Seeds Act barring prosecution under IPC or Essential Commodities Act. By observing so, the said petition was dismissed. Therefore, the said 5 ETD,J Crl.P. No.11248 of 2025 case law does not aid the petitioner in any way. Further the facts of the above said case differ from the present case. In the present case, provisions under IPC are not involved and the petitioner is facing the allegations under the Seeds Act.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the decision in M/s. Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v. Chief Agricultural Officers, Ferozepur and another (1 supra), wherein it was held that when the insecticide is purchased in a full sealed tin from the authorized distributor and that the seal had not been tampered with, then the burden under Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act was discharged and therefore, the Distributor or the Seller becomes entitled to protection under the Insecticides Act. Therefore, in view of the protection clause available under Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, the licence of the appellant therein was revoked.
11. In Devanand Datta and another v. State of Karnataka it was held that the petitioners therein were not responsible for the quality or contents of the product manufactured by the accused No.3 therein/Company and that there was no such allegation in the complaint that petitioners had stocked or displayed the product of the Company and that the petitioners being the owners of the shop 6 ETD,J Crl.P. No.11248 of 2025 in which products of the company was stocked for sale, cannot be held vicariously liable and be penalized for misbranding of the product in respect of which they were not involved in the manufacturing process and thus it was held that no allegation against the petitioners therein under the Insecticides Act can be invoked.
12. The present case does not fall under the Insecticides Act, and hence, the above two case laws are not applicable to the case on hand. In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner herein is that he is the Distributor of the substandard cotton seeds and he is facing allegations under Sections 7(b) read with Section 19 of the Seed Act, 1966 and Section 13(c) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.No.4791 of 2021, after a detailed discussion about the powers of the Seed Inspector and the proceedings under the Seeds Act, has observed that the Seed Inspector appointed under Section 13 of the Act, 1966 can initiate prosecution, and in the said case, the prosecution was initiated by the Agricultural Officer-respondent No.2 therein, but not the Seed Inspector and hence, the proceedings were quashed. In the present case, the complaint is lodged by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, who is appointed as Seed Inspector and it is mentioned 7 ETD,J Crl.P. No.11248 of 2025 in the complaint that he was appointed as Seed Inspector vide GOMs. No.1048 F & A (FPII) dated 03.12.1991. Thus, the present complaint is lodged by the Seed Inspector and he is very much authorized to draw samples and proceed according to law. Section 13 of the Seeds Act empowers the State to appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be the Seed Inspector and define the areas within which they shall exercise the jurisdiction and the duties of the Seed Inspector are enshrined in Rule 23 of the Seeds Rules, 1968. Therefore the procedure is not vitiated in the present case and the provisions of the Seeds Act are followed. The offence under Section 7(b) read with 19 of the Seeds Act, squarely get attracted against the petitioner.
13. In view of the above held discussion, the petition lacks merit and therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court, provided he is represented by a counsel on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial court as and when his presence is 8 ETD,J Crl.P. No.11248 of 2025 required before the trial court. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA November 06, 2025 KTL