Karnataka High Court
Praveen Reddy And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 December, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200449/2021
BETWEEN:
1. PRAVEEN REDDY K.,
S/O K. BALAKRISHNA REDDY
AGE: 49 YEARS
OCC: REGIONAL BUSINESS MANAGER
IN M/S PIONEER HYBRID
INTERNATIONALS SEEDS (P) LTD., HUBLI
R/O NO.52/1, 8TH CROSS ROAD,
TIMBER YARD, UNAKAL
HUBLI-580031.
2. SURESH S/O SIDDAPPA HAVERI
AGE: 53 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS, R/O NO.2A
KRISHNAMACHARI ROAD,
BELLARY-583101.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R.S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE ASST. DIRECTOR
OF AGRICULTURE/SPEED INSPECTOR,
2
LINGASUGUR, RAICHUR,
REPRESENTED BY THE
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585102.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND THEREBY QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 05.11.2018 TAKING COGNIZANCE AND
ISSUE OF PROCESS BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, LINGASUGUR IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.950/2010 FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE
SEEDS ACT, 1966 ALONG WITH SECTIONS 3 AND 7 OF
THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF AND THERETO, AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to quash the order dated 05.11.2018 taking cognizance and issue of process by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Lingasugur, in Criminal Case No.950/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 19 of the Seeds Act, 1966 along with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act') and all further proceedings arising out of and thereto, against the petitioners.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the respondent-State filed private complaint against the petitioners herein arraying them as accused Nos.1 and 2 and other accused persons. The learned Magistrate dispensed recording of sworn statement since the complainant is a government servant and took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 19 of the Seeds Act, 1966 along with Sections 3 and 7 of the EC Act. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to 4 quash the order of taking cognizance vide order dated 05.11.2018 for the above offences.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court is that the order of the learned Magistrate has resulted in miscarriage of justice and he has not applied his mind before taking cognizance. On perusal of the face value of the complaint, no offence is made out and ingredients of the said offences also not attract. The complaint is very vague. It is also contended that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners stand vitiated on the count of non-examination of the seeds by the State Seeds Laboratory and the learned Magistrate ought not to have proceeded against the petitioners in the absence of report from the State Seeds Laboratory. It is also contended that the statute mandates the seeds sample to be chemically analyzed only in State Seeds Lab created under the Seeds Act. In the absence of report of State Seeds Laboratory, no offence under the Seeds Act can be attributed. The learned counsel in 5 support of his arguments relied upon the order dated 11.01.2019 passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.101598/2016 wherein this Court in detail discussed in paragraph-16 with regard to report has to be obtained from the Laboratory and with regard to sample reanalysis by the Central Seeds Laboratory. No such sample report is collected in this case and hence, the order passed by this Court is aptly applicable to the case on hand. This Court at paragraph-18 of the order has discussed with regard to complaint and on the point of limitation also Court quashed the proceedings.
5. The learned counsel also relied upon the recent order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.201518/2021 disposed of on 18.11.2021 wherein this Court taking note of Section 10 of the EC Act observed that when the allegation is against Company and the offence is committed by the Company, in the absence of making Company as party to the proceedings, the proceedings cannot be continued.
6
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that seeds which have been sold by the petitioners and other accused persons were defective seeds and as a result, there was loss of crop. Seeds were not subjected for examination. Since defective seeds are supplied, they are responsible for the loss of crop.
7. Having Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the contents of the complaint, allegation is made that defective seeds are supplied and as a result, there was loss of crop. In the case on hand, offence under Section 19(a) of the Seeds Act is invoked, apart from that offences under Sections 3 and 7 of the EC Act are invoked. Section 19(a) of the Seeds Act says that if any person contravenes any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall be convicted for the first offence with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, and in the event 7 of such person having been previously convicted of an offence under this Section, with imprisonment for a term which may extent to six months, or with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, or with both. This has been considered by this Court in Criminal Petition No.101598/2016. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have supplied defective seeds. But in the case on hand, first of all, seeds have not been seized and sent for test. There is no analyzer report either from the State Seeds Laboratory or from the Central Seeds Laboratory. In the absence of the same, criminal prosecution is initiated against the petitioners. The said aspect is considered by this Court in Criminal Petition No.101598/2016 particularly in paragraph-16 and if any report is collected and an opportunity has to be given to get the report from the Central Seeds Laboratory under Section 16(3) of the Seeds Act. In the case on hand, petitioners stand in better footing since no such analysis report is collected by sending the samples of the seeds. In the absence of report, the Court cannot come to the conclusion that the 8 very seeds supplied are defective and not complied with Section 16(3) of the Seeds Act. In the absence of Central Seeds Laboratory analysis report or State Seeds Laboratory analysis report, there cannot be any prosecution against the petitioners. Hence, the same is covered by the judgment of this Court referred to supra. Therefore, I am of the opinion that in the absence of such report, if the prosecution is continued against the petitioners it amounts to an abuse of process and if this Court fails to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it leads to miscarriage of justice.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The impugned order of taking cognizance dated 05.11.2018 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Lingasugur, in C.C.No.950/2010 against two petitioners is hereby quashed.9
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2021 for stay does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*