Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nirmal Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Sandeep ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 October, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Awasthi
M.Cr.C. No.18348/2017
Nirmal Seed's Pvt. Ltd.
vs.
State of M.P. and others
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.M. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Abhinav
Dhandodkar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on 25 /10/2018) The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C.) for quashment of FIR No.0383/2017 registered at police station Betma District Indore for the offence under Section 3(7) of Essential Commodities Act and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant is a Private Limited Company registered under the provision of Companies Act 1956 and engaged in the business of seeds. On 04.11.2016 respondent No.3 visited the godown of the applicant and collected 3 samples of wheat seeds viede lot No. 922709, 922595 and 922573. After collecting 3 samples of wheat seeds, the samples were sent to Seed Testing Labortory Gwalior and a report was received vide letter dated 02.12.2016 wherein the germination of 2 samples was found to 2 be 77 & 78 percent germinated respectively, the Central Seeds Certification Board, New Delhi has laid the benchmark as 85% and therefore the said samples were found sub-standard. Since the applicant has produced sub- standard wheat seeds and sold to the farmers for earning profits, hence, on the basis of complaint made by the Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Depalpur an FIR has been registered against the applicant bearing crime No. 0383/2017 for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 420 of I.P.C.
3. In the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the said first information report and consequential investigation by the police are sought to be challenged mainly on the ground that complaint made by the Senior Agricultural Development Officer, Depalpur did not disclose cognizable offence so as to empower the police to investigate into the matter. It is further submitted that in case the offence is diclosed under the Seeds Act then Seeds Inspector empowered under Rule 23 (g) to institute prosecution in respect of the breaches of the Act and Rules. It is further argued that any farmers to whom those seeds have been sold, had not made any complainant against the applicant regarding the quality of the seeds. The applicant has not violated any rules prescribed under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, therefore, there cannot be initiated proceedings against the applicant for the aforesaid offence.
4. Placing reliance upon the decisions in the matter of S.V.R. Rao, Seeds Operation Manager, Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Bhaskar Tannagi Badkal 7 Ors in criminal application No. 878/1996 by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Criminal Petition No.2638/2014 (M.H Krishnamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka) High Court of Karnataka and Criminal Petition No.2197 /2001 S.A. Jayanarayana Vs. State of Karnataka- High Court of Karnataka, learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that first information report lodged in the present case did not 3 disclose any offence which can be investigated by the police authority. Referring to the various provisions of the Seeds Act and the Rules made thereunder, it was contended that the Seed Inspector under the Seeds Act and the Rules is duly empowered to investigate into any such complaint regarding the contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder and, thereafter based on the conclusions of his investigation, he is required to take necessary steps including institution of prosecution in case of breach of the provisions of the Act. It was also contended that once if an offence is disclosed under any of the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder and the same being special Act dealing with the specific provision in relation to seeds, there can be no occasion for simultaneous prosecution under any of the provisions of the General Act i.e. Indian Penal Code or Essential Commodities Act. It was also pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the penalty is prescribed for contravention of any provisions of Seeds Act under Section 19 of the Seeds Act and the maximum punishment leviable is to the extent of Rs. 500/- therefore, considering the provisions contained in part II of Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offence being non cognizable, there was no occasion for the Police authorities to assume powers of investigation in the matter.
5. To the contrary, leanred Public Prosecutor submitted that the complaint made by the Senior Agricultural Development Officer, Depalpur disclosed clear case of cheating with dishonest intention and inducement to the farmers to purchase the seeds which was found to be sub-standard and therefore, the same justify the investigation by the police in relation to the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. It was also contended that there is also violation of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983. Therefore, there is no bar to the police authorities taking cognizance from the complaint lodged by the Senior Agricultural Development Officer, Depalpur. It is further contended 4 that there is no statutory bar for lodging complaint by the Seed Inspector to the police authorities under the Seeds Act, hence he prayed for dismissal of the application.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7.Undisputedly, the complaint in the first information report lodged by the Senior Agricultural Development Officer, Depalpur is to the effect that the two samples of the wheat seeds collected from the godown of the applicant was found to be 77 and 78 % germinated. However, as per Central Seeds Board, New Delhi laid benchmark as 85% and since the samples collected from the godown of the applicant are found sub-standard. The allegations made in the complaint lodged at Police Station Betma appears to be offence punishable under Seeds Act. Section 19 thereof provides that if any person contravenes any provision of the said Act or any Rule made thereunder, or prevents a Seed Inspector from taking sample under the said Act, or prevents a Seed Inspector from exercising any other power conferred on him by or under the said Act, he shall, on conviction, be punished for the first offence with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, and in the event of such person having been previously convicted of an offence under the said section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The aforesaid provisions regarding penalty of three years is not attracted in the present case. Part II of first Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that if offence against any law other than Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only, then the same would be Non-cognizable offence.
7. Section 155 of Cr.P.C. provides that when information is given to an officer in charge of a police Station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall record the substance of the information in the prescribed form and refer the informant to the 5 Magistrate. Sub section (2) thereof provides that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Being so, once it is clear that the offences disclosed were non-cognizable offences, there was no occasion for the police to investigate into the matter as far as the offences alleged under the Seeds Act is concerned.
8. It is then sought to be contended on behalf of the respondent that the FIR also disclose the offence Punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and since the said offence is cognizable offence, the police were within their power to register the complaint and to commence the investigation in the matter. Rule 23 A (2) of the Seeds Rules, 1968 provides that if a farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that the failure of the crop is due to the defective quality of seeds of any notified kind or variety supplied to him, the Seeds Inspector shall take in his possession the marks or labels, the seed containers and a sample of unused seeds to the extent possible from the complainant for establishing the source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the causes of the failure of his crop by sending samples of the lot to the Seed Analyst for detailed analysis at the State Seed Testing Laboratory and that he shall thereupon submit the report of his findings as soon as possible to the competent authority. In the present case no farmers have made any complaint regarding failure of his crop due to defective quality of seeds sold by the applicant.
9. As already stated above, the allegation in the complaint is that the samples of seeds taken from the godown of the applicant were found sub- standard. It clearly requires that a person to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. has necessarily to act in a manner which will amount to dishonestly inducing other person who has been deceived by the act of cheating to deliver any property or any valuable security. In other words, the ingredient of offence under Section 420 of 6 I.P.C. is the dishonest inducement to the person cheated to deliver the property or valuable security. In the instant case on the face of the first information reports in question, does not disclose any fact which can constitute or prima facie establish an act of inducement by the applicant in the matter of or in relation to the seeds, therefore, absolutely no case is made out for the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. on the face of the first information reports.
10. As regards the FIR lodged for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, there is nothing in the contents of the FIR that the applicant has violated any rules prescribed under Seeds (Control) order 1983, therefore, there was no case made out for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act against the applicant. It is found that the offence disclose in the first information report is non-cognizable, therefore, police authorities are not entitled to investigate in the matter.
11.After considering the facts and material placed before this Court in the present petition is neither sufficient to disclose cognizable offences against the applicant, nor the ingredients of Section 420 of I.P.C. and 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, the investigation carried out by the police authorities is to be held as bad in law, therefore, is to be quashed. The Apex Court, in State of Haryana and Ors. V. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors., has clearly held that the condition which is sine qua non for recording First Information Report is that there must be an information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence.
12. The present petition, therefore, allowed and the FIR No. No.0383/2017 registered at police Station Betma, District Indore against the applicant is hereby quashed alongwith investigation carried out by the police following registration of this first information report.
11. Quashing of the first information reports and the investigation by the Police by this order, however, will not debar the appropriate authorities 7 under the Seeds Act to take necessary action and / or proceedings whichever legally permissible in accordance with the provisions of law against the offenders including petitioners, if so found, and including in relation to the facts and alleged in the first information reports hereby quashed.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge praveen Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2018.10.25 13:47:26 +05'30'