The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMAI.,\ DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITI ON No .11248 oi t025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitrc rer-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in I C No.624 of 2OZ2 on the file of the Junior civil Judge cum Judicial /lagistrate of First Class, Peddapally, for the offences under Sectior r 7(b) read with 19 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and sub clause (c) of the rl ause 13 of Seeds (Control) Order, '1 983

2. Heard Sri E V pushpa Vardhan, learne C counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, L rarned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No..l -State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the tr etitioner_accused No.2 is a Distributor of seeds and is alleged to l; ve supplied sub_ standard sees.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has s .rbmitted that the petitioner, being the Distributor, cannot be held lia: e for any afieged low percentage of seed germination when t te seeds were distributed rn seared and originar packaging con: tion without any interference or tampering. Thus, imposirrl liability on the "other I 2 ETD,J Crl.P. No.11248 of 2025 petitioner, who is a Distributor of the sealed packets, amounts to abuse of process of law. He further submitted that whatever the manufacturer has forwarded, the petitioner has distributed the same to its dealer without any intention to defraud or cause harm to the consumers and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v. Chief Agricultural Officers, Ferozepur and anotherl and the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench in Devanand and another v. State of Karnataka2.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner-accused No.2 is a Distributor of M/s. Coromandal (l) Limited and accused No.1 is a Dealer and that they are liable to be prosecuted for the above said offences

6. Perused the record

7. The contents of the charge sheet disclose that the Seed lnspector has visited the premises of accused No.1 for inspection of stock of cotton seeds exhibited for sale and has drawn the samples, sent them for analysis and on receiving the report, the said seed 1990 (Supp) scc 111 1 t 202s xHc-r,z5o €,qsF.n?f,--'9r' !. .:a .,,? ,a''' ... .:€ ' I f I I I I i I 3 ETD,J Crl.P. No.11248 of 2025 samples were found to be pertaining to the var e ty of PUJA (NCS- 456) BG-ll LOT No 0'15106084, contained 58% ge 'mination only and does not confirm the prescribed standards of glr,r tination i.e. 75oh. Thus, the said copy was served on accused l,l r.1 and thereafter served show cause notice to the Dealer-accusec No.1 , Distributor- accused No 2 and Marketer-accused No.3. The ,etitioner herein is accused No.2. Thus, the complaint was looc ed by the Seed lnspector before the Court of Additional Judiciat /lagistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, for the offence under Secttc rs 7(b) read with Section 19 of the Seeds Act. 1966 and Section 3(c) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 B. Section 7(b) of the Seeds Act and Se :tion 13(c) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 are extracted herer:r Jer for the sake of reference: Section 7(b) of the Seeds Act: "7. Regulation of sale of seeds of rrr or varieties:- No person shall, himself or t person on his behalf, carry on the busrnes keeping for sale, offering to sell. bartering supplying any seed of any notified kind or varie t tified kinds / any other ; of selling, rr otherwise , unless- (a) xxxx (b) such seed conforms to the minir n germination and purity specified under rm limits of :lau se (a) of section 6; I 4 ETD,J Crl.P. No.l1218 ol 2025 (c) xxxx (d) xxxx" Order 13(c) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 "'t 3. lnspection and punishment: (1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) Where any seed is seized by an lnspector under this clause, he shall forthwith respect of such seizure to a Magistrate where-upon the provisions of sections 457 and 458 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 197a) shall, so far as may be, apply to the custody and disposal of such seed."

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in Vuda Nagesh v. State of Telangana (1. supra), ln the said case, the prosecution was launched against the accused therein for the offences under the provisions of IPC and the Essential Commodities Act ignoring the Seeds Act, which was challenged before this Court and a coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that the Seeds Act and the Seeds Rules made thereunder do not in any manner prohibit any prosecution with regard to'seeds'under any other enactment other than the Seeds Act, 1966 and that there is no express or implied provision in Seeds Act barring prosecution under IPC or Essential Commodities Act. By observing so, the said petition was dismissed. Therefore, the said -"/ *-Fffi+"-=P. .., :' -t"''- .,6r' --a I I I I ! I I a i 5 ETD,J Ctl.P. No.11218 of 2025 case law does not aid the petitioner in any way. :urther the facts of the above said case differ from the present c a ;e. ln the present case, provisions under IPC are not involved ar I the petitioner IS facing the allegations under the Seeds Act

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner firril er relied upon the decision in M/s. Kisan Beej Bhandar, t bohar v. Chief Agricultural Officers, Ferozepur and another supra), wherein it was held that when the insecticide is purchaser n a full sealed tin from the authorized distributor and that the ;, ,al had not been tampered with, then the burden under Ser t on 30(3) of the lnsecticides Act was discharged and therefore, ttl r Distributor or the Seller becomes entitled to protection under ll-e lnsecticides Act. Therefore, in view of the protection clause avai z ble under Section 30(3) of the lnsecticides Act, the licence of the a1r rellant therein was revoked.

11. ln Devanand Datta and another v. t; ate of Karnataka it was held that the petitioners therein were not r -'sponsible for the quality or contents of the product manufactured by the accused No.3 therein/Company and that there was no suclr allegation in the complaint that petitioners had stocked or display -=d the product of the Company and that the petitioners being the I vners of the shop I 6 ETD,J Ctl.P. No.11248 of 2025 1-i in which products of the company was stocked for sale, cannot be held vicariously liable and be penalized for misbranding of the product in respect of which they were not involved in the manufacturing process and thus it was held that no allegation against the petitioners therein under the lnsecticides Act can be invoked.

12. The present case does not fall under the lnsecticides Act, and hence, the above tvvo case laws are not applicable to the case on hand. ln the present case, the allegation against the petitioner herein is that he is the Distributor of the substandard cotton seeds and he is facing allegations under Sections 7(b) read with Section 19 of the Seed Act, '1966 and Section 13(c) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.No.4791 of 202'l , afler a detailed discussion about the powers of the Seed lnspector and the proceedings under the Seeds Act, has observed that the Seed lnspector appointed under Section 13 of the Act, 1966 can initiate prosecution, and in the said case, the prosecution was initiated by the Agricultural Officer-respondent No.2 therein, but not the Seed lnspector and hence, the proceedings were quashed. ln the present case, the complaint is lodged by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, who is appointed as Seed lnspector and it is mentioned 7 EfD,J Crl.P. No.11248 of 2025 in the complaint that he was appointed as Sj,) rd lnspector vide GOMs. No.104B F & A (FPll) dated 03.12.1991 fhus, the present complaint is lodged by the Seed lnspector anrl he is very much authorized to draw samples and proceed accord r J to law. Section 13 of the Seeds Act empowers the State to appo r : such persons as f t it thinks fit to be the Seed lnspector and define the areas within which they shall exercise the jurisdiction and the r uties of the Seed lnspector are enshrined in Rule 23 of the Sc rds Rules, 1968 Therefore the procedure is not vitiated in the prcr ent case and the provisions of the Seeds Act are followed. The otT,: rce under Section 7(b) read with 19 of the Seeds Act, squarely g1r,1 attracted against the petitioner

13. ln view of the above held discussior, the petition lacks merit and therefore, the proceedings cannot be qr ashed. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition I y dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial co r t

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner b: ore the trial court, provided he is represented by a counsel on ev()r y date of hearing and shall appear before the trial court as and tt,l r n his presence ls 8 ETD.J Crl.P. No.11248 of 2025 ('l required before the trial court. ltliscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/-B.REKHA RANI SSISTANT REGISTRA To,

1. I J, 4. //TRUE COPYi/ SECTION OFFICER The Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for t Hyderabad. IOUT] One CC to Sri E.V. Pushpa Vardhan, Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Copies t Class, Peddapally State of Telangana at PSL o HIGH COURT DATED:0611112025 ORDER CRLP.No.11248 of 2025 ,...... i5 i-i ?0ffi -r/' DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION Bp