Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Brijmohan & Ors vs State on 20 July, 2012
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1679/2012 Brijmohan & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date of order : 20.7.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Mr. R.Bhatnagar, for the petitioners. Mr. A.R.Nikub, P.P. <><><> Issue notice. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the State, hence, notice need not be issued.
At the request of both the learned counsel, the matter is being decided finally.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 2.9.2005 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District Hanumangarh and for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.251/2009 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District Hanumangarh for the offence under Sections 6 and 7 read with Sections 19(A) of the Seeds Act.
The principle contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis whereof the proceedings of the complaint have been assailed is that the mandatory procedure prescribed for sampling of the seeds has not been followed in this case and, therefore, the proceedings of the complaint are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has 2 placed on record the complaint filed in this case by the Seed Inspector cum Agriculture Officer. It is submitted that as per the admitted fact mentioned in the complaint, the samples of the seeds were simply packed in the cloth bags and sent to the laboratory for analysis. He, therefore, contends that the mandatory procedure prescribed in the Seeds Act and Rules was not followed. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Gauri Shanker & Ors. vs. State reported in 2011 (2) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 1685, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings are liable to be quashed as the mandatory procedure of sampling has not been adhered to.
Learned PP is not in a position to dispute the fact that the procedure of taking samples of the seed as prescribed under the Act has not been followed in this case.
The relevant portion of the site inspection report filed in this case is quoted as below :-
"एक ह ककस एव ल ट क रण पण ल द र ललय गय स स प इ र न न क ल ल कर एक कम" ज$ट न न %य र ककय गय । ववशलषण ह * पय गश ल , भ$न ह * ब $ क 3-3 क"ड क0 थ%ललय , भर गय पतयक थल , 1000gm ग ब $ क0 त भर गई।
थ%ललय , प"त V रख कर ध ग द र थ%ललय क *ह बन9 ककय और च" द र स*लभननक कर (ब स) स ल लग कर थ%ललय क स ल ककय गय । थ%ललय क च"ड द र स ल करन क करन क ब 9 पतयक थ%ललय "र ललय गय न न क वववरण ललय एव फ > क प "र ईटर श 9नल ल क हस कर करव य एव सवय न भ हस कर ककय।"
On consideration of the arguments advanced at bar and upon going through the complaint filed in this case, it is evident that the Seed Inspector at the time of taking samples has not followed the mandatory procedure i.e. the manner in which the samples of Seed have to be taken. This Court whilst dealing with an identical issue in the case of Gauri Shanker (supra), has held that the non-compliance of the mandatory procedure laid down in the Seeds Act & Rules regarding the 3 manner in which the seed samples are to be taken, vitiates the proceedings upon the complaint filed for the violation of the Seeds Act.
The upshot of the above discussion is that this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order summoning the petitioners as accused persons as well as the proceedings of the entire complaint are vitiated because the mandatory provisions prescribed in the Seeds Act and Rules for the sampling and packing of the samples have not followed by the seizure officer.
Resultantly, the present misc. petition succeeds and all the proceedings of complaint case No.251/2009 are hereby quashed in its entirety.
Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/tarun/