Bombay High Court
Korra Srinivas Rao S/O Krishnamurthy ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 5 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2002(4)MHLJ368
Author: R.M.S. Khandeparkar
Bench: R.M.S. Khandeparkar
JUDGMENT R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.
1. Heard the learned Advocates for parties.
2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent.
3. In all these three petitions, the petitioners are seeking the relief in the nature of quashing the first information reports lodged by the respective Seed Inspectors with the Police at the respective Police Stations, amongst other grounds, on the ground that the said reports do not disclose any cognizable offence.
4. In Writ Petition No. 245/2000, the petitioner No. 1 is stated to have been engaged in production, distribution and sale of cotton seeds under brand name "Bharat Seeds" and for that purpose, carries on business under a concern having name "Bharat 'S' Lines" and the petitioner No. 2 looks after the said business in Nanded and surrounding areas. It is their case that there is another seed producer by name "Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd." having its office at Guntur and processing Plant at Secunderabad and office at Hyderabad. The said company is engaged in production and sale of Cotton Seeds under the brand name "Bunny". The complaint against the petitioners is that they have cheated public with sale of seeds under the brand name "Bunny" and therefore, the first information reports are filed at various Police Stations in Maharashtra, including Sillod in Aurangabad and Majalgaon in Beed, at Pahoor in Jalgaon, Vazirabad in Nanded. The substance of all those FIRs appears to be that the seeds were sold by the petitioners representing the same to be of "Bunny" mark when in fact, they were not manufactured by the company which is duly registered as the manufacturer of the seeds with the said mark and, therefore, the petitioners have committed offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and also under Sections 6A and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
5. In Writ Petition No. 253/2000, the petitioner No. 2 is stated to be carrying on business in seeds of various types in the name of Bhutada Krishi Kendra at Khamgaon, Buldhana. It is the case of the petitioners that a complaint has been lodged by the Seeds Inspector -- the respondent No. 4 at Pahoor Police Station in Jalgaon District on 10-6-2000 complaining that he suspected some of the seeds collected from Shrikrishna Krushi Seva Kendra not to be genuine seeds and on inquiry it was learnt that the same were purchased from M/s Kachrulal H. Bohra who in turn, had obtained the same from the petitioners since the seeds being bogus seeds and they originated from the shop of the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners were guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 76 to 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act as well as Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.
6. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 300/2000, it is stated that the Seed Inspector lodged complaint at Akole Police Station in the district of Ahmednagar on 10-7-2000 that the seeds of onion of Sapal Light Red brand manufactured by the petitioners and sold by Shramik Krushi Seva Kendra, Akole, Bageshwar Krushi Seva, Akole and Ganesh Krushi Seva Kalas in Akole taluka to thirteen different fanners, did not give desired yield of onion but of "Dongle" and, thereby the petitioners committed offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 6(a) and 7(b) of the Seeds Act.
7. Pursuant to the lodging of the said complaints, it appears that the Police started investigation. In all these three petitions, the said first information reports and consequential investigation by the Police are sought to be challenged mainly on the ground that none of the complaints disclose cognizable offence so as to empower the Police to investigate into the matter. The complaints do not disclose any offence either under any of the provisions of Indian Penal Code or under the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act; that, the Seeds Inspector, instead of following the procedure laid down under the Seeds Act and the Rules made thereunder, and thereafter launch the proceedings in the Court, in case an offence is disclosed under the Seeds Act had, in total violation of the provisions of the Seeds Act and the Rules, sought to take resort to the proceedings under various other Acts by approaching the Police authorities; that, in any case, once the offence is said to be disclosed under any of the provisions of the Seeds Act, there cannot be proceedings for such offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code.
8. Placing reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the matter of Raj Kapoor v. Laxman , the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Zahir Ahmed v. Azam Khan reported in 7996 Cri.LJ. 290 and of the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Sayed Kaleem v. Mysore Lakshmi Beedi Works reported in 1993 Cri.LJ.. 232, the learned Advocates for the petitioners have submitted that none of the reports in question lodged in all the cases disclose any offence which can be investigated by the police authorities. Referring to the various provisions of the Seeds Act and the Rules made thereunder, it was contended that the Seed Inspector under the Act and the Rules, is duly empowered to investigate into any such complaint regarding the contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder and, thereafter, based on the conclusions of his investigation, he is required to take necessary steps including institution of prosecution in case of breach of the provisions of the Act and the Rules as well as to take steps to prohibit the sale of the seeds suspected to be not in conformity with the standards fixed by the authorities under the said Act and the Rules. It was also contended that once if an offence is disclosed under any of the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder and the same being special Act dealing with the specific provisions in relation to seeds, there can be no occasion for simultaneous prosecution under any of the provisions of the general Act i.e. Indian Penal Code. Referring to the nature and the quantum of sentence that can be imposed for any of the offences punishable under the Seeds Act and the Rules made thereunder as well as for the offences under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, it was contended that since the maximum punishment leviable is to the extent of Rs. 500/- under the Seeds Act and for two years imprisonment under Section 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, and considering the provisions contained in part II of Schedule to Code of Criminal Procedure, the offence being non cognizable, there was no occasion for the Police authorities to assume powers of investigation in the matter. Alternatively, it was contended that as far as the complaints in Criminal Writ Petition No. 253/2000 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 300/2000 are concerned, the same, even assuming, to be disclosing the ingredients of offence of cheating, it would at the most be punishable under Section 417 and not under Section 420 Indian Penal Code and, in that case the maximum punishment being of two years, the same would be non cognizable offence. It was also contended that none of the complaints discloses any inducement to any farmer or any person to purchase the seeds by the petitioners and, therefore, the basic ingredient of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners is not disclosed in any of the complaints.
9. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. as well as the learned Advocate appearing for the Seed Inspector submitted that all the complaints disclose clear case of cheating with dishonest intention and inducement to the farmers to purchase the seeds and, therefore, the same justify the investigation by the police in relation to the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. It was contended that there is no bar for launching prosecution in relation to offence punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code while the persons are also found to be violating the provisions of Seeds Act and Rules made thereunder. According to the learned Advocates, neither the Seeds Act nor the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act prohibit launching of prosecution simultaneously in relation to the offences under those Acts as well as under Indian Penal Code. The learned Advocate appearing for the Seed Inspector also submitted that the complaint need not necessarily disclose all the ingredients of the offence and it is a matter of investigation and evidence to be placed before the Court by the prosecution. It was further contended that there is no statutory bar for lodging complaint by the Seed Inspector to the police authorities under the Seeds Act. According to the learned Advocate when the same set of facts discloses two offences under the two different statutes, the prosecution under both the Acts is not barred. Referring to Section 220 of Criminal Procedure Code, it was contended that the complaint can be filed in the Court or before the Police and there is no statutory bar in that regard. As regards the scope of expression "launching proceedings", under Rule 23A of the Seeds Rules, it was contended that the same includes filing of complaint with the Police as well as with the Court and against the sellers, manufacturers and dealers as the expression used therein is "suppliers". Reliance is also placed in the decision in the matter of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan and Ors. and attention was sought to be drawn to paragraph 5 therein wherein the Apex Court has considered the scope of Section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act and it was contended that there is no such provision in the Seeds Act and, therefore, there is no bar for the Seed Inspector to lodge complaint with the Police Authorities.
10. In Raj Kapoor's case, the Apex Court has held that the very fact that the certification under Section 5A of Cinematograph Act, 1952 was granted to the film, which is alleged to be obscene film, renders the prohibition for public exhibition of such film to be unsustainable. In Zahir Mimed v. Azam Khan, the learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court has held that the offences punishable under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 being punishable for two years, the same are undoubtedly, non-cognizable offence, and therefore could not be investigated by the police as cognizable offences. In Sayed Kateem v. Mysore Lakshmi Beedi Works, the learned single Judge of Karnataka High Court has held that when there are specific provisions in the Trade and Merchandise marks Act to punish the persons committing offences under the said Act, it would be improper to resort to Section 420 of IPC altogether ignoring those provisions. Considering the fact that the accused therein was the proprietor of the Manglore Lakshmi Beedi Works' and according to the prosecution, he had used the design, specifications and label of Mysore Lakshmi Beedies with a view to falsely apply the said Trade Marks to his beedies in order to improve the sale of his beedies in the market, the alleged offences were required to be tried and decided in accordance with the provisions contained in the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.
11. Undisputedly, the complaint in the first information reports lodged by the Seed Inspectors is to the effect that the respondents having committed offences punishable under Sections 6(a) and 7(b) of the Seeds Act, Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, Section 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. As far as the offences punishable under the Seeds Act are concerned, Section 19 thereof provides that if any person contravenes any provision of the said Act or any Rule made thereunder, or prevents a Seed Inspector from taking sample under the said Act, or prevents a Seed Inspector from exercising any other power conferred on him by or under the said Act, he shall, on conviction, be punished for the first offence with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, and in the event of such person having been previously convicted of an offence under the said section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. As far as Section 78 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 is concerned, it provides penalty for applying false trade marks, trade descriptions, etc. and therein the punishment which can be imposed is imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Similar is the case in respect of the punishment under Section 79 being penalty for selling goods to which a false trade mark or false trade description is applied. Both the said sections provide that in case the offence under the said sections is in relation to goods or any package containing goods which are drugs within the meaning of Clause (b) of Section 3 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 or "food" as defined in Clause (v) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 the offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. It is thus, apparent that in case of any offence being committed either under Seeds Act or under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, the maximum punishment which could be imposed is an imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or fine or with both. The only exception is that in case the conviction under Section 78 or 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act relates to the goods, which are drugs within the meaning of Clause (b) of Section 3 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 or "food" as defined in Clause (v) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 then the punishment can be imposed to the extent of three years imprisonment. Undisputedly, the provisions regarding penalty of three years is not attracted in any of the cases in hand. As rightly submitted by the learned Advocates for the petitioners, part II of First Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that if offence against any law other than Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only, then the same would be Non-cognizable offence.
12. Section 156 of Criminal Procedure Code provides that any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. Section 154 provides that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally or to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing- Section 155 provides that when information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall record the substance of the information in the prescribed form and refer the informant to the Magistrate. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Being so, once it is clear that the offences disclosed were non-cognizable offences, there was no occasion for the police to investigate into the matter as far as the offences alleged under the Seeds Act and the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act are concerned.
13. It is then sought to be contended on behalf of the respondents that the F.I.R. also disclose the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and that, since the offence punishable under Section 420 is cognizable offence, the police were within their power to register the complaint and to commence the investigation in the matter. As already stated above, the allegation in the complaint in Writ Petition No. 245/2000 was that the seeds bags showing resemblance to the production of Company by name Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. were being sold in the Nanded Market. The affidavit of Ashok Vishwanathrao Jukte P.S.I., Local Crime Branch, Nanded also discloses that the complainant Shri Gavande on inspection of the godown of the Trimurti Sales, in which the stock was kept, was satisfied about the resemblance between the bags which were stored for the purpose of sale and those of the manufacturers of Bunny marks seeds namely Nuzi-Veedu Seeds Ltd. The affidavit further confirms that the said facts sufficiently disclose commission of offence under Section 420 along with the provisions of the other Acts. Section 420 speaks of punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It clearly requires that a person to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under said section has necessarily to act in a manner which will amount to dishonestly inducing other person who has been deceived by the act of cheating to deliver any property or any valuable security. In other words, the necessary ingredient of offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code is the dishonest inducement to the person cheated to deliver the property or valuable security. Undisputedly, on the face of the first information reports in question, they do not disclose any fact which can constitute or prima facie establish an act of inducement by the petitioners in the matter of or in relation to the seeds or the bags containing seeds in question. Even in the affidavit filed by Ashok Vishwanathrao Jukte, there is no whisper about any material having been disclosed either at the time of lodging of first information reports or thereafter which can, prima facie, establish the act of inducement and much less, dishonest inducement by the petitioners to any person either to deliver any property or valuable security in relation to the said seeds or the bags containing the said seeds. Being so, there was absolutely no case made out, on the face of the first information reports or even by any other information given along with the said reports by the complainant, disclosing the basic ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. This clearly discloses that there was no case made out of any cognizable offence which could have been investigated by the police authorities at the time when the report was lodged in the Criminal Writ Petition No. 245/2000.
14. As regards the F.I.R. lodged in the Criminal Writ Petition No. 253/2000, undisputedly, the allegations in the F.I.R. were to the effect that the Seed Inspector suspected some of the seeds found in possession of Shrikrishna Krushi Seva Kendra and M/s Kachrulal Bohara to be bogus or of sub standard quality. The complaint further disclosed that the conclusion regarding the seeds being bogus or of sub standard quality was arrived at on the basis of the statement in that regard by the company officers of Nuzi-Veedu Company. Likewise, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 300/2000, the allegations relate to failure to get desired yield from the seeds which were purchased by 13 farmers from three dealers namely Shramik Krushi Seva Kendra, Akole, Ganesh Krushi Seva Kendra, Kalas, and Bageshwar Krushi Seva Kendra, Akole and the same were manufactured by the petitioners. Neither the complaint nor the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents disclose any inducement on the part of the petitioners to any person including the said 13 farmers so as to bring the case under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. That being the case, I do not find any justification in the contention on behalf of the respondents that the complaints lodged in these cases, disclosed cognizable offence so as to enable the police authorities to inquire into the matter.
15. There are various grounds canvassed for assailing the first information reports and investigation in the matter as well as in support thereof. But it is not necessary to deal with ail those grounds once it is found that the offences disclosed from the first information reports are non cognizable and, therefore, the police authorities are not entitled to investigate into the matter. However, it is required to consider some of points sought to be canvassed by the respondents in support of the commencement and continuation of the investigation before arriving at the final decision in the matter.
16. One of the contentions is that there is no statutory bar for lodging complaint by the Seed Inspector to the police authorities and once the provisions under the Seeds Act empower the Seed Inspector to lodge prosecution, it is to be concluded that the authorities with whom the complaint is lodged, necessarily would be entitled to investigate into the matter. In that regard, Rule 23A (2) of the Seeds Rules, 1968 has been referred to by the learned Advocate for the Seed Inspector. Rule 23-A(1) of the Seeds Rules, 1968 provides that if a farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that the failure of the crop is due to the defective quality of seeds of any notified kind or variety supplied to him, the Seeds Inspector shall take in his possession the marks or labels, the seed containers and a sample of unused seeds to the extent possible from the complainant for establishing the source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the causes of the failure of his crop by sending samples of the lot to the Seed Analyst for detailed analysis at the State Seed Testing Laboratory and that he shall thereupon submit the report of his findings as soon as possible to the competent authority. Undoubtedly, therefore, Sub-rule (1) of Rule 23-A relates to the cases where the complaints are received in writing in relation to the failure of crop due to defective quality of seeds of any notified kind or variety supplied to the farmers. This does not relate to any other non compliance of the provisions of the Seeds Act or Rules made thereunder and strictly restricted to the cases of failure of crop due to defective quality of seeds of the notified kind or variety supplied to the farmers. At the same time, the rule provides for the procedure to be followed in case of any such complaint received by the Seed Inspector and on investigation being made by himself including the analysis of the sample at the State Seed Testing Laboratory, the Seed Inspector is required to submit report regarding his findings of such investigation to the competent authority. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 23-A of the Seeds Rules then provides that in case the Seed Inspector conies to the conclusion that the failure of the crop is due to the quality of seeds supplied to the farmer being less than the minimum standards notified by the Central Government, launch proceedings against the supplier for contravention of the provisions of the Act or the said Rules.
17. The contention of the learned Advocate for the respondents is that the expression "launch proceedings" would include lodging of complaint either to the Court or to the Police authorities. It is further contended that the expression "supplier" would include manufacturer, seller or any other dealer in the seeds. As far as the contention regarding the scope of the expression "supplier" is concerned, there cannot be any doubt that "supplier" would include all those persons dealing with the supply of seeds to the farmers. Whether supplier would also include manufacture or not would certainly depend upon the facts of each case. Unless it is shown that the manufacturer is also either directly or indirectly concerned with the supply of seeds to the farmers, he cannot be considered as "supplier" merely because he is manufacturer. In case if seeds are supplied by the manufacturer to a particular farmer or a person for the utilization thereof by such farmer or person in a particular land and the said persons instead of utilizing the said seeds, supplies the said seeds to a third person, then the manufacturer cannot be called as a supplier to the third person. However, it will be a matter of evidence, and will depend upon the facts of each case. But, the contention that the expression "launch proceedings" would include lodging of complaint with the police as well as Court is totally devoid of substance and the same runs counter to the provisions of the Sub-rule (2). Sub-rule (2) of Rule 23A specifically provides that the investigation is to be carried out by the Seed Inspector himself in respect of the complaints of the farmers regarding failure of crop due to defective quality of seeds. Sub Rule (2) itself shows that the Seed Inspector can launch the proceedings only after he comes to the conclusion that the failure of crop is due to quality of seeds, supplied to the farmers being less than the minimum standard notified by the Government. In other words, the provisions contained in Rule 23A speak of detail investigation by the Seed Inspector by himself on the complaint of farmer due to defective quality of the seeds and the conclusion to be arrived at in that regard by the Seed Inspector himself. Being so, there can be no scope for the police authorities for investigation in such cases. That apart, Section 155(2) of Criminal Procedure Code specifically provides that the Police authorities cannot investigate in the matter when the same is non cognizable. Once it is clear that the punishment imposable for the offence under the Seeds Act is, less than three years imprisonment, therefore, the same is non cognizable offence, it cannot be, at the same time, said that merely taking shelter of Rule 23A(2), the police authorities will get powers to investigate into the matter. The specific provisions in the Code deprives the police authorities to investigate in the matters relating to non cognizable offences. Being so, the submission on the point of scope of expression "launching proceedings" in Sub Rule (2) of Rule 23A of the Seeds Rule, of the learned Advocate for the Seed Inspector, are absolutely devoid of substance. Besides, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners, Sub-rule (2) specifically speaks about launching of proceedings in relation to the contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder and not relating to the offence which can be said to be punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
18. The learned Advocate for the Seed Inspector also referred to Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code to contend that the complaint can also be lodged with the Police authorities. Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code speaks of certain procedure to be followed in specified situation in cases initiated otherwise than on police report. Sub-section (1) provides that when in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. Sub-section (2) provides that, if a report is made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. Sub-section (3) provides that, if the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of that code. On the face of it, Section 210 nowhere provides that any complaint can be filed either to the Police authorities or to the Court. On the other hand, the Sub-section (1) clearly provides that the same relates to the cases instituted otherwise than on a police report.
19. Reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan (supra) is also of no help to the respondents. Para 5 therefore deals with the scope of the Section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act. It has been held that considering the provisions of the said Act, cognizance of an offence against the "Act" can be taken by a Court only on the complaint of the officer mentioned in Section 55. It was sought to be contended by the learned Advocate for the respondents that there is no such provision in Seeds Act and, therefore, there cannot be any bar for the Seed Inspector to lodge complaint even to the police authorities. Merely, because there is no provision in the Seeds Act providing that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Seeds Act except on a complaint by the Seed Inspector or such an officer as authorised by the Government, it cannot be concluded that the Seed Inspector would be entitled to lodge a complaint to the police authorities. The submission on behalf of the respondents in this regard is totally devoid of substance.
20. It was also contended on behalf of the respondents that it is not necessary to disclose all the ingredients of the offence in the complaint and it is a matter for the police authorities to investigate once complaint is lodged. There can be no doubt that the first information report need not disclose all the details relating to the alleged offence. However, it should certainly disclose that the offence alleged is either cognizable or non cognizable. This is the basic requirement which has to be complied with while recording the F.I.R. when the police authorities find it necessary to investigate into the matter. It is so because Section 155(2) of Criminal Procedure Code specifically debars the investigation by the police authorities in case of non cognizable offence without an order of the Magistrate. There being clear provision debarring the police authorities from investigating into non cognizable offences, unless the F.I.R. sufficiently discloses the material which can reasonably disclose a cognizable offence, it cannot be said that the police authorities would be justified in initiating the investigation.
21. As already stated above, considering the facts that the materials placed before this Court in all these three petitions being not sufficient to disclose cognizable offences by the petitioners, nor the ingredients of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, the investigation carried out by the police authorities is to be held as bad in law and, therefore, is to be quashed. The Apex Court, in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors. , has clearly held that the condition which is sine qua non for recording First Information Report is that there must be an information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence.
22. In two of the petitions, there is also claim for compensation. However, considering the nature of controversy, and disputed questions of facts being involved in the matter, it is not possible to adjudicate about the same in the writ petition. The relief in that regard is, therefore, to be rejected, leaving the parties to pursue their remedy in appropriate forum.
23. The petitions, therefore, partly succeed. All the first information reports registered in all the three matters in the three criminal writ petitions are, therefore, quashed along with the investigation carried out by the Police following registration of those first information reports. Rule made absolute in the above terms.
24. Quashing of the first information reports and the investigation by the Police by this order however, will not debar the appropriate authorities under the Seeds Act or under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and the Rules made thereunder to take necessary action and/or proceedings whichever legally permissible in accordance with the provisions of law against the offenders including petitioners, if so found, and including in relation to the facts alleged in the first information reports hereby quashed.