Bombay High Court
Sanjay Uddhaorao Manalwar vs State Of Mah., Thr. Pso P S Ghatanji Dist ... on 10 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:2195-DB
1 APL.1134-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1134 OF 2019
Sanjay Uddhaorao Manalwar,
Aged 49 Years, Occ: Business,
R/o Ram Nagar, Chandrapur,
District Chandrapur. APPLICANT
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station Ghatanji,
District Yavatmal.
2. Rajendra Vasantrao Malode,
Aged 51 Years, Occ: Service,
R/o Taluka Agricultural Officer,
Ghatanji & Seeds Inspector, Ghatanji,
District Yavatmal. NON-APPLICANTS
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. A.A. Dhawas, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. A.M. Joshi, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
RESERVED ON : 06th FEBRUARY, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 10th FEBRUARY, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
2 APL.1134-2019.JUDGMENT.odt 1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned Counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
3. Though the Non-applicant No.2 is served none appears.
4. The present Application is preferred by the Applicant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the criminal proceedings bearing R.C.C. No. 131/2019 registered under Sections 420, 463, 465, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 of the Seeds Act, 1968 (for short the "Act of 1968) and under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009 (for short the "Act of 2009) registered with Police Station Ghatanji, District Yavatmal in connection with Crime No.226/2018.
5. The crime came to be registered against the present Applicant on the basis of the report lodged by the Non-applicant 3 APL.1134-2019.JUDGMENT.odt No.2 who is serving as a Seed Inspector. On 08.06.2018, he received the information from Police Constable Vijay Bansod stating that on 07.06.2018 one person found on motorcycle carrying a white bag. On intercepting him he fled away from the spot by keeping the vehicle on spot and the seeds were found in the said white bag. On inspecting the said white bag, 24 packets of BG-III Seeds, KAVYA BG-III PREMIUM COTTON HYBRID SEEDS, Bigboll BG-II No.1 total worth of Rs. 740/- was found in the said white bag. The said seeds were duplicate seeds and contravening the provisions of the Act of 2009. On the basis of the said report Police have registered the crime against the present Applicant.
6. After registration of the crime the investigation was carried out and during investigation the involvement of the present Applicant revealed, and therefore, he was arrested. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the present Applicant.
7. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant who submitted that, the present Applicant was not found alongwith the said adulterated seeds. He submitted that, he is arrested 4 APL.1134-2019.JUDGMENT.odt merely on suspicion by registering the offence against him. There is a non-compliance of Section 15 of the Act of 2009. He submitted that, the FIR cannot be registered under the provisions of the Act of 2009. As per Section 15 of the Act of 2009 a complaint is to be filed by the Controller or any other authorized Officer for taking cognizance by the Court, the punishment provided under Section 13 of the Act of 2009 is not more than three years or fine or both. There is apparent illegality in registration of crime, and therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed.
8. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that the Applicant was found in possession of the said cotton seeds in contravention of the provisions, and therefore, the Application deserves to be rejected.
9. As far as the contention of the learned APP is concerned, the present Non-applicant No.2 is the authorized Officer. Section 2 of the Act of 2009 deals with definition and Section 2(ii) defines "Controller" means the Cotton Seed Controller appointed by the Government under Section 3.
5 APL.1134-2019.JUDGMENT.odt Section 3 pertains to 'Appointment of Controller'- The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint an officer, possessing such qualifications as may be prescribed, to be the Controller.
10. From the plain reading of the said Sections it could be gathered that it would require notification in the Official Gazette to appoint an Officer having requisite qualification to be the Controller. The powers of the Controller are enumerated in Section 4 of the Act of 2009. Section 15 of the Act of 2009 shows that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the Controller or any other officer authorized by him for his behalf. In the present case, the FIR is lodged by the Seed Inspector. Thus, it is crystal clear that, the complaint is neither filed by the Controller nor any other Officer authorized by the Controller for this purpose. Admittedly, the FIR is filed by the Non-applicant No.2 who is serving as a Seed Inspector. No notification on record showing he is authorized by the Controller.
6 APL.1134-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
11. The pleadings which is filed on record nowhere reveals that the Non-applicant No.2 is the authorized by the Controller to file and initiate the proceedings i.e. FIR. Thus, admittedly, the Non-applicant No.2 is not the competent person who can file the said FIR. This Court has already dealt with this issue in the case of Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra, MANU/MH/1252/2015 : 2015 ALL MR (Criminal) 2213.
12. The ground raised by the Applicant is that in view of the procedure given under Section 15 of the Seeds Act, 1966, which deals with the procedure to be followed by the Seed Inspector. In view of Section 15 no opportunity was granted to the Applicant to reanalyze the sample. In view of Section 15 Sub Section 1(b) of the Seeds Act, 1966, which deals with the manner in which the samples are to be taken, which reads as under.
"15(1)(b). except in special cases provided by rules made under this Act, take three representative samples in the prescribed manner and mark and seal or fasten up each sample in such manner as its nature permits."
"15(2) When samples of any seed of any notified kind or variety are taken under sub-section (1), the Seed Inspector shall-
7 APL.1134-2019.JUDGMENT.odt
(a) deliver one sample to the person from whom it has been taken;
(b) send in the prescribed manner another sample for analysis to the Seed Analyst for the area within which such sample has been taken; and
(c) retain the remaining sample in the prescribed manner for production in case any legal proceedings are taken or for analysis by the Central Seed Laboratory under sub-
section (2) of section 16, as the case may be."
"16. Report of Seed Analyst.- (1) The Seed Analyst shall, as soon as may be after the receipt of the sample under sub-section (2) of section 15, analyse the sample at the State Seed Laboratory and deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, one copy of the (2) report of the result of the analysis to the Seed Inspector and another copy thereof to the person from whom the sample has been taken.
(2) After the institution of a prosecution under this Act, the accused vendor or the complainant may, on payment of the prescribed fee, make an application to the court for sending any of the samples mentioned in clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 15 to the Central Seed Laboratory for its report and on receipt of the application, the court shall first ascertain that the mark and the seal or fastening as provided in clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of section 15 are intact and may then despatch the sample under its own seal to the Central Seed Laboratory which shall thereupon send its report to the court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the sample, specifying the result of the analysis."
13. Thus, in view of Section 15(1)(b) of the Seeds Act, 1966 it was obligatory on the part of the Seed Inspector to obtain three representative samples. In the present case, there is non-compliance of Section 15(1)(b). The ground raised by the 8 APL.1134-2019.JUDGMENT.odt Applicant in the present Application is that the opportunity for reanalysis the sample is not given to him.
14. Another ground raised by the Applicant is that, in view of Section 15, the complaint is to be filed by the authorized Officer. Under Section 15 when the Seed Inspector seizes any record register or any other material he should inform the Magistrate and take his order for which he can use Form IV. Section 14 of the Seeds Act provides for the powers of Seed Inspector and Section 15 of the Seeds Act provides for the procedure to be followed by the Seed Inspector in taking samples. As per the provisions under Section 14(1)(c) of the Seeds Act, 1966, the Seed Inspector is empowered to search or inspect the premises any time, where the Seed Inspector has reason to believe that such offence has been committed. As per Section 14(1)(d) of the Seeds Act, the Seed Inspector may examine any record, register, document or any other material object found in any place and if he has reason to believe that the record, register, etc., may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under the Act, he may issue a seizure order in Form IV of the Seeds Rules, 1968 and 9 APL.1134-2019.JUDGMENT.odt seized the records. As per Section 14(1)(e) of the Seeds Act, 1966, the Seed Inspector can exercise such other powers as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act or any rule made thereunder.
15. Section 420 of I.P.C. provides for punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing a person to deliver the property. It clearly requires that a person to be prosecuted for the offence under the said Section has necessarily to do an act which would amount to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. The necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. is dishonestly inducing the person cheated and to deliver the property or valuable security. Undisputedly on the consideration of the F.I.R. in question it does not disclose any fact which can constitute a prima facie case establishing an inducement for the sale of seeds in question.
16. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has rightly pointed out that the Applicant has been deprived of the 10 APL.1134-2019.JUDGMENT.odt opportunity to get the sample tested in terms of Sub Section 1(b) of Section 15 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and thus the Applicant was deprived from getting the sample tested and thus there is a contravention of Section 15 Sub Sections (1)(2). Thus, a fair opportunity was not granted to the present Applicant for sending the sample as only one sample was obtained by the Seed Inspector and no sample was available for the Applicant to send it for reanalyzes. Moreover, in view of Section15, the Seed Inspector or the authorized person has to file the compliant and not the FIR. The Police authorities cannot investigate the complaints of the above nature and it is only the Seed Inspector can file complaint in view of Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
17. Thus, the Applicant has made out the case that there is a contravention of the provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966 as the complaint is not filed and the FIR is lodged i.e. also not by the authorized Officer and no sample was available for reanalysis after filing of the complaint by the Complainant. In view of that, the Applicant has made out the case. The continuation of the complaint against the provisions of law will be an abuse of process of law, and therefore, the Application 11 APL.1134-2019.JUDGMENT.odt deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER i. The Application is allowed.
ii. The First Information Report bearing Crime No. 226/2018 registered with Police Station Ghatanji, District Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 463, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 of the Seeds Act, 1968 and under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009 and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing R.C.C. No. 131/2019, are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the present Applicant.
18. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.) S.D.Bhimte Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 10/02/2026 16:46:04