Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. ... vs State Of Maharashtra At The Instance Of ... on 7 April, 2016
Author: Z.A. Haq
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 apl346,347,348.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.346 OF 2015
1) Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd.,
A Company registered under the Companies
Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at
Resham Bhavan, 78, Veer Nariman Road,
Mumbai and Office at Dawalwadi, Jalna,
through its Authorised Signatory,
Mr. Govind R. Patel.
2) Govind R. Patel s/o Ramjibhai Patel,
Age 53 years, Occupation - Service,
R/o 901, Sagar Garden, Sambhaji Nagar,
Mulund, Mumbai. .... APPLICANTS
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra,
at the instance of Shri Girish Vishnupant
Nanoti, Seed Inspector & DQCI,
C/o. District Superintending Agriculture
Officer, Amravati District, Amravati. .... NON-APPLICANT
AND
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.347 OF 2015
1) Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd.,
A Company registered under the Companies
Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at
Resham Bhavan, 78, Veer Nariman Road,
Mumbai and Office at Dawalwadi, Jalna,
::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:21:15 :::
2 apl346,347,348.15
through its Authorised Signatory,
Mr. Govind R. Patel.
2) Govind R. Patel s/o Ramjibhai Patel,
Age 53 years, Occupation - Service,
R/o 901, Sagar Garden, Sambhaji Nagar,
Mulund, Mumbai. .... APPLICANTS
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra,
at the instance of Shri Madhukar Govindrao
Sontakke, Seed Inspector & District
Quality Control Inspector,
C/o. District Superintending Agriculture
Officer, Washim, District Washim. .... NON-APPLICANT
AND
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.348 OF 2015
1) Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd.,
A Company registered under the Companies
Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at
Resham Bhavan, 78, Veer Nariman Road,
Mumbai and Office at Dawalwadi, Jalna,
through its Authorised Signatory,
Mr. Govind R. Patel.
2) Govind R. Patel s/o Ramjibhai Patel,
Age 53 years, Occupation - Service,
R/o 901, Sagar Garden, Sambhaji Nagar,
Mulund, Mumbai. .... APPLICANTS
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:21:15 :::
3 apl346,347,348.15
State of Maharashtra,
at the instance of Shri Sanjay Dattatraya
Deshmukh, Seed Inspector & DQCI,
C/o. District Superintending Agriculture
Officer, Yavatmal, District Yavatmal. .... NON-APPLICANT
______________________________________________________________
Shri Sunil Manohar, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A.A. Naik,
Advocate for the applicants,
Shri S.S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 7
APRIL, 2016.
th
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for the applicants and Shri S.S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-
applicant.
2. These three applications are disposed by the common judgment as facts are identical and point involved is same.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
4. The District Superintending Agriculture Officers filed ::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:21:15 ::: 4 apl346,347,348.15 complaints against the applicants contending that the applicant No.1- Company introduced an advance booking scheme for different varieties of seeds, advance bookings were taken and substantial amount was collected from dealers and retailers, however, the advance bookings were not honoured and the company was not in a position to supply the products to the consumers and the amount taken from dealers and retailers was not refunded. The non-applicant/ complainant prayed that the applicants be prosecuted and punished for offences under Section 13(1), 19(a) of the Seeds Act, 1966, Section 3 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009 and Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In all the three cases similar complaints are filed.
The applicants have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the complaints filed by the non-applicant be quashed
5. According to the applicants, as per Section 4(1)(ii) of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009, the controller may, by an order in writing, require any person engaged in the supply, distribution and ::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:21:15 ::: 5 apl346,347,348.15 sale of cotton seeds, to comply with the directions as may be specified in the notification as to the variety, quality and quantity of the cotton seeds to be sold or delivered by him. But, in the instant case, there is no such order, direction or notification requiring the applicants to supply specified quantity or variety of cotton seeds and therefore, Section 13(1) of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009 will not be applicable. The applicants have stated that order or direction has not been issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or under Seeds Control Order and therefore, Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 will not be attracted. It is the case of the applicants that the ingredients, necessary to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out in the complaint.
6. The learned Senior Advocate has submitted that identical complaints were filed under the instructions of Chief Quality Control Officer, Agriculture Commissionarate, Maharashtra State. According to the communication dated 13-06-2011 issued by him, the District Superintending Agriculture Officer was authorised to file the complaint. It is submitted that Criminal Application No.5256/2013 ::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:21:15 ::: 6 apl346,347,348.15 was filed before the Aurangabad Bench of this Court which is allowed by the judgment dated 15-09-2014 and identical complaint filed by the non-applicant through the District Superintending Agriculture Officer, Jalna against the applicants is dismissed. It is pointed out that Criminal Application 4402/2013 filed by the applicants at Aurangabad Bench of this Court is allowed by the judgment dated 03-03-2015 and the identical complaint filed by the non-applicant through the District Superintending Agriculture Officer, Beed, is dismissed.
7. It is submitted that Criminal Application (APL) No.232/2013, Criminal Application (APL) No.130/2013 and Criminal Application (APL) No.394/2014 filed by the applicants before this Court are allowed by the judgment dated 16-01-2015 and the complaints filed by the non-applicant through the District Superintending Agriculture Officer, Buldhana, through the District Superintending Agriculture Officer, Wardha and through the District Superintending Agriculture Officer, Nagpur are dismissed. The learned Senior Advocate has pointed out that the non-applicant has admitted in the reply filed before this Court that the complaints which are dismissed by the judgments passed by this Court, were identical to the complaints which are the subject of present proceedings.
::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:21:15 :::7 apl346,347,348.15 It is prayed that the present applications be allowed and the complaints filed by the non-applicant be dismissed.
8. Shri S.S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the judgments given by this Court in the other cases dismissing the complaints filed against the applicants cover the challenges raised by the applicants in so far as the complaint under Section 13(1), 19(a) of the Seeds Act, 1966 and Section 3 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009 are concerned, but those judgments will not cover the challenges raised by the applicants to the validity of complaint under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the earlier complaints which are dismissed by the judgment passed by this Court deal with the illegal acts of the applicants at other places but in the present case, there are specific accusations against the applicants that they have collected substantial amount from the dealers and retailers at the time of advance booking of orders for supply of seeds and though the orders have not been honoured and seeds have not been supplied, the applicants have not refunded the amount. It is submitted that in these facts, the complaint ::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:21:15 ::: 8 apl346,347,348.15 filed by the non-applicant cannot be dismissed in its entirety and the applicant will be liable to face the prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal code.
9. The learned Senior Advocate for the applicants has referred to the averments in the complaints to the effect that the company has not refunded the amount taken at the time of booking and has supplied in linkage other cotton seeds which were not demanded by the dealers and farmers. It is submitted that the complaint is not that the applicants have misappropriated the amount taken at the time of booking. It is pointed out that the complaints which are earlier dismissed by this Court were identical and also levelled accusations of commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that this Court found that the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code were not made out and the complaints are dismissed.
10. It is admitted on behalf of the non-applicants that the complaints filed against the applicants cannot be continued for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1), 19(a) of the Seeds Act, ::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:21:15 ::: 9 apl346,347,348.15 1966, Section 3 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and for the offence under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009, in view of the law laid down in the judgment delivered by this Court in Criminal Application (APL) No. 4402/2013, Criminal Application (APL) No. 232 of 2013, Criminal Application (APL) No. 130 of 2013 and Criminal Application (APL) No. 394 of 2014, referred earlier.
11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be quashed as there is prima-facie material against the applicants.
After going through the judgments given in Criminal Application No. 4402 of 2013 and other matters referred earlier, I find that similar allegations were made in the complaints which were subject matter of Criminal Application No. 4402 of 2013 and other connected matters. Further I find that the averments made in the present complaints, prima-facie do not make out the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:21:15 :::10 apl346,347,348.15 The applicants have stated on oath before this Court that the applicant No.1-Company has refunded the amount taken from distributor/customers. The applicants have come out with the specific case that none of the distributor/customer has made complaint that the amount is not refunded by the applicants. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not been able to point out any complaint from any distributor/customer against the applicants making grievance that the amount taken by the applicants at the time of advance booking has not been returned and has been illegally misappropriated by the applicants. The learned Senior Advocate for the applicants has rightly relied on the judgment given in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 to substantiate the submission that the cognizance of the complaint for commission of the offence under Section 406 or Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code can be taken only on a complaint at the behest of the person against whom the offence is committed.
The learned A.P.P. has submitted that the defence of the applicants cannot be considered at this stage and the Court is required to examine whether, prima-facie, offence is made out against the applicant, so that they can be prosecuted.
::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:21:15 :::11 apl346,347,348.15 To counter the submission made on behalf of the non-
applicant, it is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the argument made on behalf of the non-applicant is misdirected. It is submitted that the complaint filed by the non-applicant and the documents on record do not show that any distributor/customer has made any complaint against the applicants and it is the duty of the Court to examine this aspect before directing issuance of process for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that this Court has already quashed the similar complaints filed by the non-applicants against the applicants and if the present complaints are not quashed, the applicants will have to suffer undue hardships which may affect the reputation of the applicants.
I find that the submissions made on behalf of the applicants have to be considered. In my view, the prosecution of the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be continued on the basis of the complaints filed by the non-applicants.
12. Hence, the following order :
i) Criminal Case No.1883/2011 filed by the non-applicant and pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, ::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:21:15 ::: 12 apl346,347,348.15 Amravati, Regular Criminal Case No.259/2011 filed by the non-applicant and pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Washim and Regular Criminal Case No.290/2011 filed by the non-applicant and pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yavatmal, are quashed.
ii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
iii) In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE pma/raut ::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:21:15 :::