Karnataka High Court
Sri Somashekhar N S vs State Of Karnataka on 13 July, 2023
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:24460
W.P. No. 16083 of 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.16083 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.16162 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.16830 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.19213 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.19231 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.19504 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.23467 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.14609 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
IN WRIT PETITION NO.16083 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SOMASHEKHAR N. S.,
Digitally signed S/O SHIVALINGAIAH
by PADMAVATHI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
BK
Location: HIGH PROPRIETOR OF PRAGATHI AGRO
COURT OF AGENCIES REJEGOWDA BUILDING
KARNATAKA
R/O 21ST CROSS, V.V.NAGAR
MANDYA - 571 401.
2 VIJAYA KUMAR SHETTY
S/O PADMANABHA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF
CHITTARI AGRO CARE PVT. LTD.,
69, 89 FEET RD, I.T.I LAYOUT
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:24460
W.P. No. 16083 of 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
MALLATHAHALL, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA - 560 056.
3. SRI GOTTUMUKKALA NAGESHWARAO
DIRECTOR, M/S NAKASA CROP
SCIENCE PVT. LTD.,
S/O RATTAIAH
DOOR NO.2-69, OPP BRAMARAMBA
APARTMENTS, SIVALAYAM ROAD
PEDKAKANI - 522 509.
GUNTUR DISTRICT
ANDRA PRADESH.
4. SHAMBULINGAIAH
S/O RACHAIAHSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
PROPRIETOR OF SUBHA CROP CARE
PLOT NO.1045, GROUND FLOOR
23RD MAIN, 24-A CROSS
RAILWAY TRACK, PARALLEL ROAD
'A' BLOCK, SAHAKARNAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 090.
PETITIONER NO.4 DELETED ON VIDE ORDER DATED
23.12.2021
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHEIF SECRETARY
DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:24460
W.P. No. 16083 of 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
AND INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR
SMT. PRATIBHA H. G.,
DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
TALUK MANDYA
MANDYA - 571 401.
3. LICENSING AUTHORITY AND
JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
INSECTICIDE REGISTERING AUTHORITY
DC OFFICE COMPOUND
MANDYA - 571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODA, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT
FILED IN PCR NO.115/2021 CONVERTED AS C.C.NO.4772/2021
VIDE ANNEXURE-K BY R-2 BEFORE II ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND
CJM MANDYA AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION NO.16162 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
1. SRI SOMASHEKHAR N. S.,
S/O SHIVALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
PROPRIETOR OF PRAGATI AGRO
AGENCIES, REJEGOWDA BUILDING
R/O 21ST CROSS, V.V.NAGAR
MANDYA - 571 401.
2. VIJAYA KUMAR SHETTY
S/O PADMANABHA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:24460
W.P. No. 16083 of 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
CHITTARI AGRO CARE PVT. LTD.,
69, 89 FEET RD, I.T.I LAYOUT
MALLATHAHALLI, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA - 56.
3. SHAMBULINGAIAH
S/O RACHAIAHSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
PROPRIETOR OF SUBHA CROP CARE
PLOT NO.1045, GROUND FLOOR
23RD MAIN, 24-A CROSS
RAILWAY TRACK PARALLEL ROAD
'A' BLOCK, SAHAKARNAGAR
BENGALURU - 90.
PETITIONER NO.3 DELETED ON VIDE ORDER DATED
23.12.2021
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 01.
2. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
AND INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR
SMT. SUNITHA H. M.,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
TALUK MANDYA
MANDYA - 571 401.
3. LICENSING AUTHORITY AND
JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
INSECTICIDE REGISTERING AUTHORITY
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:24460
W.P. No. 16083 of 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
D.C OFFICE COMPOUND
MANDYA - 571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED IN PCR NO.116/2021
CONVERTED AS C.C. 4773/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-E BY R2
BEFORE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MANDYA
RESTRICTED TO ACCUSED NOS.1, 2 AND 4 THAT IS
PETITIONER 1 TO 3 THAT IS COMPLAINT AGAINST A1, A2 AND
A4 MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE-E.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.16830 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
1. SRI NAVEEN KUMAR M.,
S/O MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
PROPRIETOR OF GURU AGRO TRADERS
R/O N.M.ROAD
OPP. GOVT. HOSPITAL
PANDAVAPURA - 571 434.
DISTRICT: MANDYA.
2. VIJAYA KUMAR SHETTY
S/O PADMANABHA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF
CHITTARI AGRO CARE PVT. LTD.,
69, 89 FEET RD, I.T.I. LAYOUT
MALLATHAHALLI, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA - 560 056.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:24460
W.P. No. 16083 of 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
AND INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR
SMT. PRIYADARSHINI S. N.,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
PANDAVAPURA, TALUK MANDYA
MANDYA - 571 401.
3. LICENSING AUTHORITY AND
JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
INSECTICIDE REGISTERING AUTHORITY
DC OFFICE COMPOUND
MANDYA - 571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT
FILED IN PCR NO.140/2021 CONVERTED AS C.C.519/2021
VIDE ANNX-L BY R-2 BEFORE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
PANDAVAPURA AND THIS PRAYER IS RESTRICTED TO
PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION NO.19213 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
1. SRI B.SHIVAPRASAD
SYMBIOSIS AGRO MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,
DIRECTOR
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:24460
W.P. No. 16083 of 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
SYMBIOSIS AGRO MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,
NO.1195, 26TH MAIN ROAD
9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 069.
2. SRI NAVEEN KUMAR M.,
S/O MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
"GURU AGRO TRADERS"
OPP. GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL
N.M.ROAD
PANDAVPURA - 571 434.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
AND AGRICULTURE INSPECTOR
PRIYADARSHINI S. N.,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
PANDAVPURA - 571 434.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.140/2021 AND REGISTERED AS
C.C.NO.519/2021, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, PANDAVPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT (ANNEXURE-A) IN SO
FAR AS PETITIONER ARE CONCERNED (A1 AND A5) AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION NO.19231 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:24460
W.P. No. 16083 of 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
1. M/S. PASURA CROP CARE PVT. LTD.,
SIKANDERABAD, TELANGANA
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. JASMIN BIO LABS PVT. LTD.,
MUNIRABAD, MADCHAL
MALKAJGIRI, TELANGANA
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR
FOR AGRICULTURE
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT
VIJAYAPURA - 586 104.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.8401/2020 (PCR 609/2020)
PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-
III, VIJAYAPURA, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERNED (ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3) ANNEXURE-B.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.19504 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI VEERA SRINIVAS CHUNDURI
DIRECTOR, M/S. AGASTYA AGRO LIMITED
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
9-1-125, ST. JOHNS ROAD
RAILWAY COLONY CHILAKALGUDA
SECUNDERABAD
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC:24460
W.P. No. 16083 of 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
TELENGANA - 500 025.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
AND INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
TALUK MANDYA
MANDYA - 571 401.
3. LICENSING AUTHORITY AND
JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
INSECTICIDE REGISTERING AUTHORITY
DC OFFICE COMPOUND
MANDYA - 571 401.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT
FILED IN PCR NO.115/2021 CONVERTED AS C.C.4772/2021
VIDE ANNEXURE-G BY R2 BEFORE II ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM MANDYA RESTRICTED TO ACCUSED NO.3 THE
PETITIONER.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24460
W.P. No. 16083 of 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
IN WRIT PETITION NO.23467 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
M/S. SHARANU AGRO KENDRA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI NADAGOWDA
S/O BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
A.P.M.C COMPLEX, MYSORE ROAD
KRISHNARAJPETE TALUK
DISTRICT MANDYA TOWN.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
KRISHNARAJPETE TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401.
3. LICENSING AUTHORITY AND
JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
INSECTICIDE REGISTERING AUTHORITY
DC OFFICE COMPOUND
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP)
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24460
W.P. No. 16083 of 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT
FILED IN PCR NO.266/2019 CONVERTED AS C.C.NO.411/2021
VIDE ANNX-J FILED AGAINST PETITIONERS BY R-2 BEFORE
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC K.R.PETE.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.14609 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
NAGESHWARA RAO
S/O LATE RATHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF
M/S. NAKASA CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD.,
AT FLAT NO.280, PHASE-III
INDUSTRIAL PARK, PASHAMYLARAM
PATANCHERY, SANGA REDDY DISTRICT
TELANGANA - 502 319.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY AGRICULTURAL OFFICER - I,
AND INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR
REPRESENTED BY OFFICE OF
ASSISTANT AGRICULTURAL DIRECTOR
DAVANAGERE - 577 002.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED IN PCT
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24460
W.P. No. 16083 of 2021
AND CONNECTED MATTERS
NO.125/2020 DTD 14.09.2020 VIDE ANNX-E FILED BY
RESPONDENT BEFORE JMFC III, DAVANAGERE AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners in the respective petitions are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.4772/2021, pending before the II ACJ & CJM, Mandya, in C.C.No.4773/2021, pending before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, in C.C.No.519/2021, pending before the Civil Judge & JMFC, Pandavpura, Mandya, in C.C.No.8401/2020, pending before the IV ACJ & JMFC-III, Vijayapura, in C.C.No.411/2021, pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R.Pete, registered for the offence under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and in C.C.No.289/2021, pending before the JMFC III, Davanagere. All the aforesaid cases are registered for the offences under the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968.
2. Heard Smt. Sona Vakkund, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24460 W.P. No. 16083 of 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in all the petitions would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the order passed by this Court in the case of RAFEL DEL RIYO VS.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2022 (2) KLJ 608, only for the reason that the samples that were secured by the Department have long ago expired and the expiry of the samples is admitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader on verification of the records.
4. This Court in the case of RAFEL DEL RIYO (supra) has held as follows:
"13. Point No.(ii): Whether the entire proceedings get vitiated on account of prejudice and violation of Section 16 of the Act?
14. Seeds were collected from a dealer by the complainant. The dealer is accused No.3. The sample was collected or seized on 12-11-2020. The sample collected was sent to the Analyst at the Seed Examination Centre in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Karnataka. The sample that was sent by the complainant was received by the Seed Analyst on 13-11-2020 as could be seen from the documents appended to the petition. The Seed Analyst submits his report on 4-12-2020 opining that germination of the seed was at 81% as against the prescribed germination in terms of Section 6 of the Act at 98.6%. The Seed Analyst declared the seed to be "sub standard".
15. The seed that was taken during the search was manufactured on 19-05-2020. The shelf life of that particular seed was to expire on 18-02-2021. If the said Analyst had submitted his report on 04-12-2020, nothing
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24460 W.P. No. 16083 of 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS stopped the respondent/complainant to take further proceedings in accordance with law. After the life of the seed expired on 18-02-2021, a show cause notice is issued to the Company to show cause as to why proceedings should not be initiated for sub-standard quality of the seed. After issuing a show cause notice, a complaint is registered by the respondent/complainant invoking Section 19 of the Act before the learned Magistrate at Byadagi and the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence.
16. It is now germane to notice the report of the Seed Analyst and its aftermath. Section 14 of the Act deals with powers of the Seed Inspector and Section 15 deals with the procedure to be followed by the Seed Inspector. Therefore, the power of seizure is available under Section 14 to a Seed Inspector and the procedure to be followed after such seizure is dealt with under Section 15. Sections 14 and 15 of the Act read as follows:
"14. (1) The Seed Inspector may-
(a) Take samples of any seed of any notified kind or variety from -
(i) any person selling such seed; or
(ii) any person who is in the course of
conveying, delivering or preparing to deliver such seed to a purchaser or a consignee; or
(iii) a purchaser or a consignee after delivery of such seed to him;
(b) send such sample for analysis to the Seed Analyst for the area within which such sample has been taken;
(c) enter and search at all reasonable times, with such assistance, if any, as he considers necessary, any place in which he has reason to believe that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed and order in writing the person in possession of any seed in respect of which the offence has been or is
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24460 W.P. No. 16083 of 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS being committed, not to dispose of any stock of such seed for a specific period not exceeding thirty days or, unless the alleged offence is such that the defect may be removed by the possessor of the seed, seize the stock of such seed;
(d) examine any record, register, document or any other material object found in any place mentioned in clause (c) and seize the same if he has reason to believe that it may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under this Act; and
(e) exercise such other powers as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act or any rule made thereunder.
(2) Where any sample of any seed of any notified kind or variety is taken under clause (a) of sub-section (1), its cost, calculated at the rate at which such seed is usually sold to the public, shall be paid on demand to the person from whom it is taken.
(3) The power conferred by this section includes power to break-open any container in which any seed of any notified kind or variety may be contained or to break-open the door of any premises where any such seed may be kept for sale:
Provided that the power to break-open the door shall be exercised only after the owner or any other person in occupation of the premises, if he is present therein, refuses to open the door on being called upon to do so.
(4) Where the Seed Inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1), he shall, as far as possible, call not less than two persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take their signatures on a memorandum to be prepared in the prescribed form and manner.
(5) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), shall, so far as may be,
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24460 W.P. No. 16083 of 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS apply to any search or seizure under this section as they apply to any search or seizure made under the authority of a warrant issued under section 98 of the said Code.
15. (1) Whenever a Seed Inspector intends to take sample of any seed of any notified kind or variety for analysis, he shall-
(a) give notice in writing, then and there, of such intention to the person from whom he intends to take sample;
(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.
(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.
(3) If the person from whom the samples have been taken refuses to accept one of the samples, the Seed Inspector shall send intimation to the Seed Analyst of such refusal and thereupon the Seed Analyst receiving the sample for analysis shall divide it into two parts and shall seal or fasten up one of those parts and shall cause it, either upon receipt of the sample or when he delivers his report, to be
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24460 W.P. No. 16083 of 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS delivered to the Seed Inspector who shall retain it for production in case legal proceedings are taken.
(4) Where a Seed Inspector takes any action under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 14:
(a) he shall use all despatch in ascertaining whether or not the seed contravenes any of the provisions of section 7 and if it is ascertained that the seed does not so contravene, forthwith revoke the order passed under the said clause or, as the case may be, take such action as may be necessary for the return of the stock of the seed seized;
(b) if he seizes the stock of the seed, he shall, as soon as may be, inform a magistrate and take his orders as to the custody thereof;
(c) without prejudice to the institution of any prosecution, if the alleged offence is such that the defect may be removed by the possessor of the seed, he shall, on being satisfied that the defect has been so removed, forthwith revoke the order passed under the said clause.
(5) Where as Seed Inspector seizes any record, register, document or any other material object under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 14, he shall, as soon as may be, inform a magistrate and take his orders as to the custody thereof."
(Emphasis supplied) After transmission of the seed to the Seed Analyst by the Seed Inspector in terms of Section 15, the Seed Analyst is required to prepare a report under Section 16. Section 16 of the Act runs as follows:
"16. (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 report of the
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24460 W.P. No. 16083 of 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS result of the analysis to the Seed Inspector and another copy thereof to the person from whom the sample has been taken.
(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 despatch 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.
(3) The report sent by the Central Seed Laboratory under sub-section (2) shall supersede the report given by the Seed Analyst under sub-section (1).
(4) Where the report sent by the Central Seed Laboratory under sub-section (2) is produced in any proceedings under Section 19, it shall not be necessary in such proceedings to produce any sample or part thereof taken for analysis."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. In terms of Section 16, the Seed Analyst shall as soon as possible on receipt of sample prepare a report of the sample and furnish the same to the Seed Inspector and another copy thereof to the person from whom the sample was taken. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 grants liberty to the accused after institution of the prosecution under the Act, on payment of a prescribed fee, to make an application to the Court for sending any of the sample to a Central Seed Laboratory for its report and on receipt of such application, the Court will ascertain the mark and seal or fastening and may then despatch the sample
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24460 W.P. No. 16083 of 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS under its own seal to the Central Seed Laboratory. The purport of sub-section (2) of Section 16 is, after institution of the prosecution the accused will have liberty to get the sample verified and tested for the second time by the Central Seed Laboratory, which would be a second opinion, resulting in vindication of the stand of the prosecution or the accused. Therefore, sub-section (2) of Section 16 assumes great significance, as it can either save the accused from the prosecution or result in the prosecution continuing with the trial.
18. It is germane to consider the dates noticed hereinabove. The date of collection of sample is 12-11- 2020. The Seed Analyst gave his report on 4-12-2020. The life of the seed was till 18-02-2021. All these are undisputed facts. After the life of the seed itself had expired by the time prosecution was launched which was on 16-03-2021 the right of the accused to get the seed re-assessed by the Central Seed Laboratory under sub- section (2) of Section 16 is rendered illusory. An important right of the accused is taken away by the callous action on the part of the prosecution. If the life of the seed had expired, the seed cannot be sent for a second opinion by the Central Seed Laboratory. It ought to have been done prior to the expiry of life of the seed. Therefore, taking away the right under sub-section (2) of Section 16 has caused great prejudice to the petitioner or even the Company against whom the notice is issued.
19. It is trite law that procedural violation causing prejudice will have to be construed strictly and it cannot be said that trial should continue notwithstanding the right under sub-section (2) of Section 16 being taken away by indolence of the respondent/complainant. Reference made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UNIQUE FARMAID PRIVATE LIMITED2 (supra) in the circumstances is apposite. In the said case the Apex Court holds as follows:
"11. Sub-section (1) of Section 30 which appearsto be relevant only prescribes in effect that ignorance would be of no defence but that does not 2 (1999) 8 SCC 190
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24460 W.P. No. 16083 of 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS mean that if there are contraventions of other mandatory provisions of the Act, the accused have no remedy. The procedure for testing the sample is prescribed and if it is contravened to the prejudice of the accused, he certainly has the right to seek dismissal of the complaint. There cannot be two opinions about that. Then in order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory, it is incumbent on the prosecution to file the complaint expeditiously so that the right of the accused is not lost. In the present case, by the time the respondents were asked to appear before the Court, the expiry date of the insecticide was already over and sending of the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory at that late stage would be of no consequence. This issue is no longer res integra. In State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. [(1996) 11 SCC 613 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 312 : JT (1996) 10 SC 480] this Court in somewhat similar circumstances said that the procedure laid down under Section 24 of the Act deprived the accused to have the sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and adduce evidence of the report so given in his defence. This Court stressed the need to lodge the complaint with utmost despatch so that the accused may opt to avail the statutory defence. The Court held that the accused had been deprived of a valuable right statutorily available to him. On this view of the matter, the Court did not allow the criminal complaint to proceed against the accused. We have cases under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 involving the same question. In this connection reference be made to decisions of this Court in State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal [(1998) 5 SCC 343 :
1998 SCC (Cri) 1315] under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram [AIR 1967 SC 970 : (1967) 2 SCR 116] , Chetumal v. State of M.P. [(1981) 3 SCC 72 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 632] and Calcutta Municipal Corpn. v. Pawan Kumar Saraf [(1999) 2 SCC 400 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 218] all under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24460 W.P. No. 16083 of 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS The Apex Court in the afore-extracted judgment was interpreting Insecticides Act, 1968 , provisions of which are in pari materia with that of the Seeds Act. The Apex Court has clearly held that the right of the accused to get the sample tested again, a right that is conferred under the Insecticides Act gets deprived if the proceedings are not initiated without any loss of time. The Apex Court further holds that the accused had been deprived a valuable right statutorily available to him and order obliteration of criminal proceedings against the accused therein. The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UNIQUE FARMAID is followed by this Court again interpreting Insecticides Act in THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S ANUP PRODUCT LIMITED3's case (supra) wherein a learned single Judge of this Court holds as follows:
"2. The alleged offence pertains to the material, trade name of which is ANUFEM and the commercial name is FENVALRATE. Certain undisputed facts may be set out. Purchase was made on 28.11.1994. It was sent for analysis to the Insecticides Control Laboratory at Bellary on 29.11.1994. The Analyst tested it on 9.12.1994 and opined that the sample does not conform to the set standard.
Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act requires that a copy of the said report shall be delivered by the Insecticide Inspector to the person from whom the sample was taken. In pursuance of the said requirement under sub-section (2), a copy was delivered on 27.1.1995. As per sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act, the above said report of the insecticide Analyst would be conclusive, unless, within 28 days of the receipt of the notice under sub-section (4), the person concerned notifies to the Insecticide Inspector in writing about his intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the said report. Within the said period of 28 days, the Insecticide Inspector was intimated in writing by the communication dated 20.2.1995. Sub-section (4) of Section 24 inter alia provided that, where sample has not already been tested 3 ILR 2001 KAR 5217
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24460 W.P. No. 16083 of 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory, like in the present case where it was in a Laboratory other than the Central Insecticides Laboratory, and where a person has under sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of the Insecticides Analyst's report, the Court may of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or of the accused, cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the Magistrate under Section 22(6) of the Act to be sent for analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, and the result thereof shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. With this right accrued to the petitioners to have the sample tested in the Central Insecticides Laboratory and thereby to adduce evidence in controversion of the report earlier issued by the Insecticide Analyst, it was to be expected that the prosecution would be launched at the earliest, at any rate, before the shelf life of the material concerned would expire, and to have the sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory, the reason being that, Crl.P.No.102512/21 without launching of the prosecution, the Court would not be seized of the matter in order to decide under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act in the matter of sending the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. It is therefore to be expected that, prosecution will be launched expeditiously, at any rate before the expiry of the shelf life of the material concerned. It so happened that while shelf life of the material concerned expired in February 1995, complaint itself came to be lodged in December 1995.
The Supreme Court happened to deal with a similar situation and this is what the Supreme Court said in this regard in State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid P. Limited. [ 1999 (3) CC. Cases (SC) 101.] "Procedure for testing the sample is prescribed and if it is contravened to the prejudice of the accused, he certainly has right to seek dismissal of the complaint. There cannot be two opinions about that. Then in order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested from Central Insecticides Laboratory, it is incumbent on the prosecution to file the complaint expeditiously so that the right of the accused
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24460 W.P. No. 16083 of 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS is not lost. In the present case, by the time the respondents were asked to appear before the Court, expiry date of the insecticide was already over the sending of sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory at that late stage would be of no consequence. This issue is no longer res integra. In the State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., (JT 1996 (10) SC 480) this Court in somewhat similar circumstances said that the procedure laid down under Section 24 of the Act deprived the accused to have sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and adduce evidence of the report so given in his defence. This Court stressed the need to lodge the complaint with utmost dispatch so that the accused may opt to avail the statutory defence. The Court held that the accused had been deprived of valuable rights statutorily available to him. On this view of the matter, the Court did not allow the criminal complaint to proceed against the accused. We have cases under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 involved in the same question. In this connection reference be made to decisions of this Court in State of Haryana v. Brijlal Aiitlal [(1998) 5 SCC 343] under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram (AIR 1967 SC 970); Chenmal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1981) 3 SCC 72]; and Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Pawan Kumar Saraf [(1999) 2 SCC 400] all under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954.
It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that the respondents in these appeals have been deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act. Under sub-section (3) of Section 24, report signed by the Inseclicildes Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and shall be conclusive evidence against the accused only if the accused do not within 28 days of the receipt of the report, notify in writing to Insecticides Inspector or the Court before which proceedings are pending that they intend to adduce evidence to controvert the report. In the present cases, Insecticides Inspector was notified that the accused intended to adduce evidence to controvert the report. By the time the matter reached the Court, shelf life of the sample had already expired and no purpose would have
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24460 W.P. No. 16083 of 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS been served informing the Court of such an intention. The report of the Insecticides Analyst, therefore, not conclusive. A valuable right had been conferred on the accused to have to sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and in the circumstances of the case, accused have been deprived of that right, thus, prejudicing them in their defence.
In these circumstances, High Court was right in concluding that it will be an abuse of the process of the Court if the prosecution is continued against the respondents - the accused persons. High Court rightly quashed the criminal complaint. We uphold the order of the High Court and would dismiss the appeals."
(Emphasis supplied) In the light of the facts obtaining as afore-narrated and the judgments of the Apex Court extracted hereinabove, both with regard to the Company not being made a party and the entire proceedings getting vitiated on account of prejudice being caused to the accused, in my considered view, this is a fit case where this Court has to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner, failing which such proceedings would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.
20. Before parting with the case, it may not be inapt, to observe that plethora of cases are brought before the Court, like the case at hand, wherein prosecution is launched after, either the period of limitation is over or where the right of the accused available in the statute gets extinguished, by sheer inaction on the part of the respective departments. The Apex Court in the case of PEPSI FOODS LTD. V. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE4, has observed as follows:
"28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course."
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24460 W.P. No. 16083 of 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS Criminal law is set in motion by the departments particularly empowered to launch prosecution against the violators of the provisions of the respective enactments, as a matter of course, as is done in the case at hand. It is therefore, the head of such Departments should endeavour to put their house in order and direct the officers empowered to initiate or launch prosecution, if they chose to do so, to do so without any loss of time, as "administrative indolence cannot be and should not be countenanced".
In the light of the afore-extracted order and the facts obtaining in the case at hand, the right of the petitioners to get a second test by the Central Laboratory is defeated on the ground that the samples have expired and the expiry is attributable to the State. Therefore, permitting further proceedings to continue, would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER a. The writ petitions are allowed.
b. The proceedings in C.C.No.4772/2021, pending before the II ASCJ & CJM, Mandya, in C.C.No.4773/2021, pending before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, in C.C.No.519/2021, pending before the Civil Judge & JMFC, Pandavapura, Mandya, in
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC:24460 W.P. No. 16083 of 2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS C.C.No.8401/2020, pending before the IV ACJ & JMFC-
III, Vijayapura, in C.C.No.411/2021, pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R.Pete, registered for the offence under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and in C.C.No.289/2021, pending before the JMFC III, Davanagere, stand quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0 CT:SS