Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Ajeet Seeds Ltd. & Ors vs State & Anr on 7 November, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2110 / 2015
1. M/S Ajeet Seeds Ltd. Second Floor Tapadiya Terraces, Adalat
Road Anurangabad-431001 (Maharastra)
2. M/s New Durga Traders, in front of Co-operative Bank, Subhash
Marg, Bilara, (Jodhpur)
3. Mahipal Singh Matwa S/o Shri Dhirendra Singh Matwa, B/c
Matwa, R/o H. NO.90, Karninagar, Jhotwada Jaipur, Regional
Manager M/s. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. 522 Alankar Plaza Plot No.A-10,
Central Spine, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur-302023.
4. Kishan Khandlwal S/o Shri Hari Prakash, B/c Khanelwal,
Properitor M/s New Durga Traders, in front of Co-operative Bank,
Subhash Marg, Bilara (Jodhpur.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Sh. Ramesh Chandra, Seed Inspector and Agriculture Officer
(Raining) Office of the Assistant Director Agriculture (Extenion),
Jodhpur.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. PK Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. MS Panwar, PP
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 07/11/2017
1. Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding of Criminal Case No.43/2013 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No.2 visited the sample M/s. New Durga Traders (2 of 5) [CRLMP-2110/2015] (Jodhpur) as seed Inspector and collected the sample of Mustered Seeds and was sent to the State Sees Laboratory Jodhpur for Examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that sample was tested in the State Laboratory and the seeds were found to the 99% pure and germination power was found to be 81% instead of minimum required 85% and therefore, the sample was found to be sub-standard.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that respondent No.2 was filed a complaint against the petitioners before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. It is also contended that the petitioners have an indispensable right under Section 16(2) of the Seed Act, 1966 to get the sample re-tested from the Central Seeds Laboratory after institution of prosecution i.e. after filing of complaint against them in the court and the report of the Central Lab shall supersede the report of State Laboratory.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in M/s. Tulsi Beej Store & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1623/2017, decided on 24.05.2017).
5. The coordinate Bench of this Court on 20.10.2016 has passed the following order in M/s. Tulsi Beej Store Vs. State (Supra):-
"1. The petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 24.01.2008 passed by (3 of 5) [CRLMP-2110/2015] learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in criminal case No.45/2008 whereby the learned Magistrate took the cognizance for the offence under Section 13(1)(c) Seed Control Order 1983 read with Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act.
2. In the petition, essentially proceedings founded on complaint are questioned on the ground that mandatory procedure prescribed for sampling of seeds has not been adhered to in the matter. It is on this ground the petitioners have craved for upsetting the impugned order and quashing the entire proceedings qua them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the complaint itself, it is abundantly clear that samples of seeds were simply packed in the cloth bags and sent to the laboratory for analysis. Learned counsel, therefore, contends that the manner in which the sample of seeds were packed and sent for laboratory analysis is in clear violation of mandatory procedure prescribed under the Seeds Act and Rules framed thereunder. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision in case of Guari Shanker & Ors. V/s. State reported in 2011 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1685. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has not disputed the legal position as per judgment in Gauri Shanker (supra). Learned Public Prosecutor, however, submits that the instant petition is filed by the petitioners in the capacity of owner of the petitioner firm as well as its sister concern, therefore, indulgence can be granted to the petitioner only to the extent of culpability (4 of 5) [CRLMP-2110/2015] attributed to M/s Tulsi Beej Store and its sister concern.
5. Heard Learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. Before examining the matter on merits, it would be just and proper to refer the relevant excerpt from the complaint:-
"mDr mRiknd }kjk fufeZr cUn FkSfy;ksa esa ls 1500 xzke cht fudkyk mls rhu diM+s dh LoPN o lw[kh FkSfy;ksa esa izR;sd esa 500 xzke ds fglkc ls cht Hkjk x;kA vesjhdu dikl cht dk fooj.k izi=&5 esa Hkjdj izR;sd FkSyh esa j[kkA diM+s ds rhuksa FkSfy;ksa dks mij ls /kkxs esa cka/kdj piM+h }kjk czkl lhy ls lhy cUn fd;k x;kA"
7. Taking into account the above noted recitals from the complaint and upon consideration of the arguments advanced at Bar by learned counsel for the parties, unhesitatingly, in my view, Seed Inspector at the time of taking samples has not followed the mandatory procedure.
8. In Gauri Shanker (supra), a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court has held that non- compliance of mandatory provisions contained in Seeds Act and Rules made thereunder can vitiate the proceedings of a complaint which is founded on violation of Seeds Act.
9. In view thereof and relying on Gauri Shanker (supra), in my view, proceedings of the complaint are vitiated and, consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
10. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order as well as proceedings in Criminal Case No.45/2008 are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners. The stay petition is also disposed of."
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-2110/2015]
6. In light of the afore-quoted judgment, this criminal misc. petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order as well as proceedings in Criminal Case No.43/2013 are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. Sudheer choudhary