Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sumer Singh Bhati vs State & Anr on 9 May, 2012
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.892/2008
Sumer Singh Bhati. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
:::
JUDGMENT
:::
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.892/2008
Sumer Singh Bhati. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Date of Judgment :: 9 May, 2012.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Mr.TS Rathore, for the petitioner.
Mr.AR Nikub, PP, for the respondent State.
...
BY THE COURT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the proceedings of Criminal Case No.380/2005 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 6 & 7 read with Section 19A of the Seeds Act.
The principle contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.892/2008 Sumer Singh Bhati. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2 the petitioner has 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 petitioner 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 complaint filed in this case is quoted as below :-
"व श षण हत पय गश म भजन हत ब ज क 3-3 कपड क थल य म भर गय पतयक थ # म 1000 ग म ब ज क म त भर# गई। थल य म पपत V रख कर ध ग द र थल य क म+ह बन- ककय और चपड द र सलभननक कर# (ब4स) स ग कर थल य क स ककय गय । थल य क चपड द र स करन क ब - पतयक थल य पर ल य गय नम5न क व रण ल य ए + फम8 क ................ श बज: क हसत कर कर य ए + स य+ न भ हसत कर ककय।"
On consideration of the arguments advanced at bar and upon going through the complaint filed in this case, it is SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.892/2008 Sumer Singh Bhati. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 3 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 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 petitioner as accused person 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 complaint case no.380/2005 and all subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed in its entirety.
Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
S.Phophaliya