The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused No.'1 and 2 in STC.No,64 of 2021 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class lVlagistrate, Sangareddy at Sangareddy U/Sec. 7(b) of the seeds Act 1966. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in STC.No.64 ol 2021 on the file of Honble Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy at Sangareddy U/Sec.7(b) of the seeds Act '1966. This petiticrn ,:omi G ro u n d s o r c r i r n j,r a r,, " #, I I Reddy.J ,Advocarte ror the petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh. Ar;sistant public Prosecutor on bc,ha lj of the Respondent No..l and None apl)eared for the Respondent No 2 iff '[t#!T j'#ilt" j f j;tT ",]i ;.:-"": lf ",, .., The Court made the ic,llowing: ORDER ---7., THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.4862 ot 2025 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of proceedings in STC No.64 of 2021 on the file the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy (for short 'the trial Court') against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2

2. Heard Mr.J.Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1 -State.

3. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the complaint filed by lhe de-facto complainant-respondent No.2.

4. Vide USR No.43822 of 2025, notice'was sent to respondent No.2. Despite receipt of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.12.2018, the de- facto complainant - respondent No.2, who is Mandal Agricultural Officer, Zaheerabad Mandal, Sangareddy District has inspected the premises of the petitioners and drawn the seed samples as per the procedure laid down under Sections 14(a) and 15(1)(2) of the Seed 2 Act, 1966 for tler purpose of testing by duly serving noticr,r vide Form- Vl. The Seerd lnspector has drawn seed sample from the premises of accused ltlo.1 liybrid Maize variety bearing Lot Nc.13i340749 with three samples (lt each '1 Kg from the shop of accused No.1 as per the procedure ar,d irey were taken in the clean dry cloth bag and tied by putting infcrrnaton slip inside the sample and a copy of it:; produced. It has been prcperty labeled and sealed and the sairl samples were drawn under thr: cover of Panchanama. Thus accusr:d f,los.1 and 2 have comnrrtlerj offence by violating Section 7(b) ol the See:ds Act.

6. Learnerj rx>unsel for the petitioners would subrnit that among three repre:sr,:nt : tive samples prepared, the second re6rresentative sample was; s,en. to the Seed Analyst, Assistant Director of ,Agriculture, Seed Testin,; Lab, Rajendranagar on 17.12.2018 fo" analysis. Thereafter, thr: sample analyst had provided the analytrcal .eport after analysis of the: said sample, through ROC No.102,1/1 8.19, dated 07 .01 .2019 c er; aring the sample as sub-standard and does not confirm to the 1r'r:scribed minimum seed standards ol Hycrid Maize Germinatior fi0'7, as against 90% is minimum gerrnination standards and the saic arna l,tical report was served to the AI on 13.0. .201g and obtained ackno,a4edgement on it. The same Form Vll/Post copy confirmation anct acknowledgment copy are produced. // --r. 3 7, The contention of learned CoUnSel for the petitioners is that though the samples which have been drawn from the premises of the petitioners,whichhavebeendeclaredassub-standardanddoesnot confirmtotheprescribedminimumseedstandardsofHybridMaize Gerinination 80% as against 90% is minimum Germination standards as per the analytic report issued by the seed expert as per the procedure contemplated under Section 16(2) of the Seed Act' The petitionerwasgravelyprejudicedandastherightofthepetitioneras provided under Section 16 of the Seeds Act stood taken away' Therefore, he seeks to allow this criminal petition' S.LearnedAssistantPublicProsecutorwouldsubmitthatitisan admitted fact that the sample was drawn from the premises of the petitionerandnotfromthepremisesofthesuppliersandtheanalytical report given by the Seed Analyst, Assistant Director of Agriculture' Seed Testing Lab, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad' The petitioner was not given any opportunity after sending the sample to the Central Seed Laboratory as per Section 16 (2) of the Seed Act, however' it does not have any major impact in the proceedings' Therefore' prayed for dismiss the criminal Petition.

9. Perused the material available on record

10. For better appreciation of the facts of thb case' it is apposite to extract Section 16 of the Seed Act which reads as under:- I I 4 '16. Rel,ort 1f Seed Analysl- (4 Ale i\) itlslitution of a prosecution under this Act. lh) ac(used vendcr or lhi complainant may, on payment of the presc.ibed fee, nake an apoli:ali<.r to the Court for sending any of the samplos m(nliorgd in clause ( t) cr clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 1(i to trc C,,nlral Seed Labo,-ilxy for its repod and on receipt of the application the )ourt shall lirs' a.; )(,rtain lhat the mark and the seal or fastenintl as ltroviced in clausc (b) rt sub-section (1) of section 15 are intact and may then despatclt thr sample under its own seal to the Central Seed t-abor 2tory which st )ll 1\?reupon send its repod to the Court in the presc.ibed form wilhin orte q,onth from the date of receipt of the sample spe:;ifyin,1 the resull )fthe alysis.

11. A plain ro rding of the above wourd abundanlry nlake it clear that it is mandak:r)/ to give an opportunity to the petitiorrer lo make an application on l)lyment of the prescribed fee, to the C,turt for sending any of the sarnp €)s mentioned in clause (a) or clause (c) of r;ub-section (2) of section 115 16 16s Central Seed Laboratory for its repc)rt. Section 16 of the Sier-.c /\ct is relevant to have the sample analyzed by the Central Laboralc,ry, to enable the accused to have a iec(rnd opinion and ascertain tl-rt: correctness or otherwise of the firrdinqs or the public Analyst. Howr.rve r, no opportunity was given to the pet tionr:r to make an applicatiorr iard the charge sheet haS been filed cn,6.07.2021 before the J.rclicrirt First Class Magistrate at Sanga Redcry.

12. ln the inrstant case, as per the records, the sample war,; drawn by the Mandal Ar;rir;rrltural Officer, Zaheerabad l\Iandal cn 1r.12.201g. As per the: in16y16s, the petitioner purchased the se,eds from M/s.Chytanya Agrc Agencies on 07.06.2018 and the exp,iry of the deeds was l;ht)vyr as 27.01 .2019. But the said compaint was filed / 7', 5 only after expiry date of the said seeds before the trial Court without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. '13 ln view of foregoing observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has lost the mandatory opportunity provided under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act to enable the accused to have a second opinion and ascertain the correctness or othenlrise of the findings of the Public Analyst, 1966, in respect of the sample analyzed by the Central Laboratory. The complaint filed against the petitioner was only after expiry date of the sample. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the accused in STC No.64 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy.

14. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,'shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, sangareddy at sangareddy, 2. One CC to Sri Venugopal Reddy.J, Advocate [OPUC] 5. l*o CCs to the public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies Svs/gh HIGH COURIT' DATED:01t0t5t2025 ( ,- ::'_: =l=-.\- ,'.',..,, E 5'i.i; ^{':1 '1 g JIl,l 206 ,\ ,l ; )t ./)' ,l /: Ir; \, 4; \.r\\ ORDER CRLP.No.486i2 of 2025 ALLOWING']THE CRLP 6 Lp'' r1