Bombay High Court
Poonam W/O. Ram Dongare And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 September, 2022
Author: S. G. Mehare
Bench: S. G. Mehare
1 908-ABA.940-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
908 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.940 OF 2022
1. POONAM W/O. RAM DONGARE
2. UMESH S/O. ZUMBARLAL NAHAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Shinde Ganesh P.
APP for Respondent-State : Ms. V. S. Choudhari.
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 22.09.2022
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the
learned APP for the respondent-State.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants has vehemently
argued that the Director / Controller of the Agriculture
Commissionrate had issued a circular dated 29.04.2022
regulating the sale of cotton. As per this regulation, the sale of
the said cotton seeds was prohibited for the retail seller till
31.05.2022 and retailers were allowed to sale cotton seeds
from 01.06.2022. The complainant without authority has taken
the trap by sending dummy customer to purchase the cotton
seeds. The applicants sold the cotton seeds before the
prescribed date i.e. 01.06.2022. The trap was successful.
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2022 04:14:37 :::
2 908-ABA.940-22.odt
However, the complainant examined various things and found
that the applicants violated various Rules and Regulations of
the said Act.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has vehemently
argued that as per the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation
of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act,
2009, the Controller is the sole authority to control and
regulate the supply, distribution, sale and sale price. He also
referred to the preamble of the said Act and vehemently
argued that cotton seeds is not an essential commodities within
the meaning of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In the Seeds
Control Order, 1983, Section 3 of the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955 are not applicable insofar as they relates to cotton
seeds. No provisions as such were available in the
Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986. Therefore, to protect
the exploitation of the poor farmers by the traders in cotton
seeds, the said Act has been enacted. He has also vehemently
argued that Section 13 of the said Act provides for the penalty
for the contravention of any order issued by the controller
under Section 4. It provides for the punishment with the term
which may extent to three years or with fine or with both or
with fine of Rs.5,000/- or with both. He has also referred
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2022 04:14:37 :::
3 908-ABA.940-22.odt
Section 15 of the said Act and vehemently argued that no
Court shall take the cognizance of an offence punishable
under the said Act except upon the complaint, in writing made
by the controller or any Officer authorized by him for this
purpose. The gist of his argument is that the prime offence
against the applicants is the breach of the circular issued by the
controller dated 29.04.2022. There are no elements of an
offence under Section 420 of the IPC.
4. It has been alleged against the applicants that they had
breached Section 7(c) of the Seeds Act, 1966 and the
maximum punishment for the contravention of the said Act
and Rule for the first offence, is fine which may extent to
Rs.500/- and in the event of previous conviction with
imprisonment which may extent to six months or with fine
which may extent to Rs.1000/- or both. He has also argued
that the applicants are the poor traders. They had no intention
to cheat anybody. However, the trap was arranged by the
complainant with malafide motive. The Rules framed under
the Seeds Act have not been followed. Therefore, they may be
protected.
5. Learned APP has opposed the application contending
that there are antecedents to the discredit of the applicants.
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2022 04:14:37 :::
4 908-ABA.940-22.odt
The applicants have breached the circular of the Controller and
caused the hurdle in eliminating the effect of Shendari Bond
Ali on the cotton. Therefore, the applicants have committed
serious offence.
6. Perused the papers and relevant provisions of law
referred to by the learned counsel for the applicants. The
prime offence against the applicants is the breach of the
circular issued by the Controller of the Agriculture
Commissionerate dated 29.04.2022. Considering the
punishment provided for the breach of the provisions of the
Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution,
Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009 and the Seeds Act,
the offences appears not serious. The trap was successful and
nothing is to be recovered from the applicants. Whether
Section 420 would apply or not is a matter of investigation.
Considering the allegations levelled against the applicants and
the law applicable in this case, the Court is of the view that this
is a fit case for anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) In the event of arrest, applicant No.1. POONAM W/O. RAM DONGARE and 2. UMESH S/O. ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2022 04:14:37 ::: 5 908-ABA.940-22.odt ZUMBARLAL NAHAR, be released on bail on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with one solvent surety in the like amount each in Crime No.165 of 2022, registered with Police Station Gangapur, District Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Section 7(c), 19 of the Seeds Act, Section 420 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, on the condition that they shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.) ...
vmk/-
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2022 04:14:37 :::