Gujarat High Court
Jagdishbhai Vitthalbhai Kansagra vs P.P.Thumar (Agriculture Officer ) on 20 April, 2023
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
R/CR.MA/14867/2015 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 14867 of 2015
==========================================================
JAGDISHBHAI VITTHALBHAI KANSAGRA
Versus
P.P.THUMAR (AGRICULTURE OFFICER ) & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AI SURTI(875) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. MIHIR A SURTI(6887) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 20/04/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.
2. This application has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing and setting aside the complaint being Criminal Case No.4408 of 2006, filed by the respondent no.1-Agricultural Officer for the alleged violation of Section 6(a) and 7(b) of The Seeds Act, 1966 and rules thereunder.
3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present application are that, the applicant no.1 was having license to sell tomato seeds, whereas the applicant no.2 is in business of selling of tomato seeds and applicant no.3 is the Sales Officer. The respondent no.1 being an Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 21 20:45:33 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/14867/2015 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023 Agricultural Inspector, in exercise of powers conferred upon him by the Act, had visited the place of the applicants on 11.11.2005 and had drawn/collected sample of tomato seeds variety "S-22" bearing Lot No.131-0222/A. The sample so collected was sent for analysis to Seed Testing Laboratory at Junagadh. The report dated 17.12.2005, issued by Junagadh Laboratory shows that, the sample of tomato seeds was found substandard in GERMINATION TEST. The respondent no.1 had issued show cause notices to the applicants to which reply and details furnished by them. The respondent no.1 after considering the reply, thought it fit to file a private complaint for the alleged offence committed under Section 6(a) read with Section 7(b) of The Seeds Act, 1966, punishable under Section 19 of the Act. On receiving the summon, the applicants appeared before learned trial Court at Porbandar. The applicant no.2 moved an application for reanalysis of the said sample under Section 16(2) of The Seeds Act, 1966 to be sent to Central Seed Testing Laboratory at Varansi. Learned trial Court vide order dated 11.12.2014, rejected the application and observed that, the shelf life of the seeds had expired on 20.12.2005 and therefore, it could not yield any result, if sample will be sent to Central Seeds Testing Laboratory.
4. In the aforesaid facts, the present application has been preferred mainly on the ground that, the statutory right guaranteed under Section 62 of The Seeds Act of the Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 21 20:45:33 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/14867/2015 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023 applicants of reanalysis has been deprived of, due to expiration of shelf life of seeds.
5. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. Mihir A. Surti and Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
6. Before adverting to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant, it is necessary to refer the relevant dates:
(i) Sample was drawn on 11.05.2005.
(ii) Sample sent to State Laboratory, Junagadh on
17.11.2005.
(iii) Report of analysis issued on 07.12.2005.
(iv) Shelf life of the seeds expired on 20.12.2005.
(v) The complaint bearing C.C. No.4408 of 2006 is filed on 01.07.2006.
7. Mr. Surti, learned counsel for the applicant reiterating the grounds mentioned in the petition, submitted that, the competent authority without any reason, failed to initiate criminal proceedings, as a result, the life of the seeds expired for which there is no fault on the part of the applicants herein and therefore, the valuable right of the applicants to send the sample for reanalysis has been affected.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there was a delay in Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 21 20:45:33 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/14867/2015 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023 replying the show cause notice so that relevant period would expire and therefore, the contention raised by the applicants having no any merits.
9. It is not in dispute that, the complaint is filed after the expiry of shelf life of the seeds. Section 16(2) provides, inter-alia that, "after the institution of the proceedings under this Act, the accused can make an application to the Court for sending the sample to the Central Seeds Laboratory." Section 16(2) confers a valuable right as well as opportunity to the accused to bring out, demonstrate and establish mistake or anomaly, discrepancy if any, in the analyst report. It needs to be noted that, the right conferred under Section 16(2) is a valuable right in as much as the report of Central Seeds Laboratory would according to the provisions contained in Section 16(3), supersedes the report given by the State Laboratory under Section 16(1).
10. In light of the aforesaid legal provision and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is a delay in lodgment of the complaint, as a result, the shelf life of the seeds expired. Unless and until the prosecution is initiated by the competent authority, the applicants will have no right to ask the authority to send the sample to Central Laboratory. Thus, this Court is of considered opinion that, delay caused in filing the complaint which deprived of the valuable rights for reanalysis, of the applicants. It is beneficiary to refer the Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 21 20:45:33 IST 2023 R/CR.MA/14867/2015 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2023 case of MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS 2017 LawSuit(SC) 687, wherein the Apex Court observed that, when the sample has lost its shelf life, the accused deprived of his valuable right of reanalysis and such deprivation will go to the root of the matter and render the prosecution futile and redundant.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the application deserves to be allowed. The Criminal Case No.4408 of 2006, pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court at Porbandar is quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) TAUSIF SAIYED Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 21 20:45:33 IST 2023