Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bayer Seeds Pvt Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 5 January, 2018
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3360 / 2017
Bayer Seeds Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Nunhems India Pvt.
Ltd.), Having Its Registered Office At S-196, Kandlakoya, Medchal,
Hyderabad-501403, Through Its Authorized Representative and
Legal Counsel Mr. Animesh Acharjee.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through P.P. Jaipur, Raj.
2. Seed Inspector & Assistant Director, Agriculture (Expansion),
Bharatpur, Raj.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aladeen Khan, PP
Dr. Dileep Kumar Srivastava Assistant
Comissioner, Quality Control, Seeds.
Kishan Lal Sharma Assistant Director
Agriculture Science, Bharatpur.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI
Order
05/01/2018
Heard learned counsel for both the sides as also
learned Public Prosecutor.
Mr. Dileep Kumar presently working as Assistant Commissioner Quality Control Seeds present in person in compliance of the order dated 13.11.2017.
This misc. petition has been preferred with a prayer to quash the complaint No.33/2012 pending before learned ACJM, Deeg and to set aside the order dated 30.05.2014 passed by that Court summoning the accused in the proceedings lodged on the (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3360/2017] complaint filed by Seeds Inspector Agricultural Inspection, Bharatpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966 a valuable right has been given to the accused to get the sample of seeds examined by the Central Seed Laboratory. Sub-section 3 of Section 16 makes the report of the Central Seed Laboratory binding upon the report analysis under sub-section (1). His contention is that complaint was filed on 20.01.2012, i.e. almost after six months of the report given by State Seed Laboratory. After service upon the accused Kisan Beej Bhandar, the application was moved under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, whereupon the sample was sent for Central Seed Testing Laboratory (CSTL) on 03.02.2012. The said sample was tested by CSTL on 06.03.2012 whereas the said sample had already expired on 12.02.2012. His contention is that the report of CSTL cannot be taken into consideration as the sample had already expired prior to conduct of the examination.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer stating that as per the said Seed Testing Laboratory germination of the sample of seed was only 53% whereas the minimum standard prescribed is 70%. The said test was conducted on 30.07.2011 by the State Laboratory.
Mr. Dileep Kumar submits before the Court that the sample was received in the Central Seed Testing Laboratory on 10.02.2012 and it was put to germination on 13.02.2012, the intervening days being holidays. The worksheet has also been submitted by Mr. Dileep Kumar which shows that the facts (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3360/2017] narrated by him are correct. It is thus clear that the sample was put for germination after the validity of the sample i.e. 12.02.2012.
In view of this the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner holds good that said report of the Central Seed Testing Laboratory is of no avail. As per sub-clause (3) of Section 6 of the Seeds Act, report of the Central Seed Testing Labortory supersedes the report of seed analyst under sub-section (1).
In view of the facts mentioned above it is obvious that credence cannot be placed upon the Central Seed Testing Laboratory report, the sample having been expired prior to the examination. In view of this fact, allowing the proceedings in complaint no.33/2012 will only be an abuse of process of law and therefore the Court is of the view that the misc. petition deserves to be allowed.
Resultantly, the misc. petition is allowed and the proceedings pending before ACJM, Deeg in complaint No.33/2012 are quashed and set aside.
(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI) J.
JKP/26