High Court
Facts
1 63-CrWP-1743-22.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1743 OF 2022M/S. GREEN GOLD SEEDS PVT. LIMITED, WALUNJ, DIST. AURANGABAD AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER...Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Ganesh P. Shinde APP for Respondents : Ms. A. S. Deshmukh…CORAM: KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE: 07-07-2025PER COURT:-1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learnedA.P.P. for the State.2.The petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage ofadmission with the consent of the parties.3.The petitioners/original accused in Summary Criminal CaseNo.2178 of 2018 registered with Judicial Magistrate First Class,Jalna, have filed this petition. Order under challenge is passed bythe learned Judicial Magistrate taking the cognizance of thecomplaint filed by respondent No.2 under the Seeds Act, 1966 (inshort, “Act”) for violation of Section 19(a)(i) of the Seeds Act readwith provisions under Section 6(a) and 7(b) of the Seeds Act andRules 7 and 10 of the Seeds Rules, 1968 (for short, “Rules”). 2 63-CrWP-1743-22.odt4.It is case of the complainant that petitioner No.1/company isin the business of production and marketing of soyabean hybridseed. A complaint came to be filed against the petitioners forviolation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is alleged inthe complaint that on the packet of seeds, germination rate shownwas 70%, however, on actual testing it was found to be 55%. Ashow-cause notice was therefore, issued on 10.08.2018 topetitioner No.1 which is the manufacturing company of the seeds.Petitioner No.2 is the responsible person of petitioner No.1.Petitioner No.3 is dealer who supplied seeds to the retail shop ofpetitioner No.4. The notice was replied on 30.08.2018 byauthorized signatories of petitioner No.1. A specific request wasmade to give seed sample for analysis from the Central SeedTesting Laboratory, Varanasi, in view of Section 16(2) of the SeedsAct. However, no such opportunity was given and complaint cameto be lodged on 19.11.2018. The learned Magistrate thereafterpassed order dated 22.11.2018 issuing process against thepetitioners.5.It is the case of the petitioners that the sample was taken on07.06.2018 of soyabean (research) Gold 3344 having Lot No.17-13-2002 A-36318. It is stated that expiry date of the said lot wastill 02.11.2018. It was, thus, necessary in compliance of Section16(2) of the Seeds Act to get the reanalysis done prior to saiddate. Since it was not sent for reanalysis, the petitioners lost their
Legal Reasoning
4 63-CrWP-1743-22.odt8.Learned A.P.P. submits, from affidavit-in-reply of respondentNo.2 that the seed testing was done from the Seed TestingLaboratory, Parbhani. The said laboratory report is always takeninto consideration from National Accreditation Board for Testingand Calibration Laboratories (NABL). The testing is done by thesaid laboratory. Therefore, the report cannot be doubted andneeds to be accepted when the sample was tested by Seed TestingLaboratory, Parbhani. It was before expiry of lot and expiry of shelflife of the seeds. She submits that the prosecution was rightlylodged and opportunity needs to be given to prove it’s case. She,therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.9.Having considered the arguments, it is seen that about thedates there is no dispute. Further, it is seen that though thepetitioners asked the authorities to send the sample for reanalysis,the same was not done. Looking to the order passed by thelearned Magistrate also, this Court finds that the order does notshow any application of mind. The order ought to have been aspeaking order, reflecting as to what way and how the Magistratewas satisfied that the case was made out to issue summons.10.In Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. (supra) the Honourable ApexCourt has observed in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 thus;“5.In the present case, by the time the complaint came tobe filed on 31.01.2003, the sample has lost its shelf life. Ifthat be so, the accused-appellant must be understood tohave been deprived of his valuable right of reanalysis. 5 63-CrWP-1743-22.odt6.Such deprivation will go to the root of the matter andrender the prosecution futile and redundant. If that is so, weare inclined to hold that there is no reason why theproceedings should not be quashed.…”Thus, it is clear that the learned Magistrate failed to applyhis mind. It is seen that right to get sample reanalysis is valuableright of the accused.11.In R. Shridhar (supra), this Court considered variousjudgments of the Honourable Apex Court. By considering thosejudgments, this Court observed that in the said case also thecomplaint was instituted after shelf life of the seed was expired. Insuch circumstances it is observed that the sample becomes unfitfor analysis by the Central Seed Laboratory. Observing that, thisCourt was pleased to allow criminal application and quash and setaside the proceedings before the trial Court.12.Considering all above, this Court has no hesitation inrecording that continuation of said proceeding before the trialcourt would certainly be an abuse of process of law. The orderpassed by the learned Magistrate also does not show applicationof mind. In any case, when the complaint itself was institutedafter expiry of product, no purpose would be served by keepingthe prosecution alive. There is clear violation of Section 16(2) ofthe Seeds Act.
Arguments
3 63-CrWP-1743-22.odtstatutory and valuable right. It is submitted that no cognizance ofthe complaint could have been taken by the learned Magistrate.The petitioners therefore, are before this Court.6.Heard both the sides.7.Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued thatcompliance of Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act is mandatory when arequest is made for reanalysis. The wording clearly shows that it isthe report after reanalysis by the Central Seed Laboratory thatprevails upon the report of the State Laboratory. The right to getthe sample for reanalysis is, thus, a valuable right. In spite ofspecific reply by petitioner No.1, no sample was given forreanalysis. The summons itself is issued by order dated22.11.2019 by that time the expiry date was already over. Thepetitioners are, thus, rendered remediless and defenseless. Noprosecution under such circumstances can be continued.Continuing the proceedings would now be an abuse of process oflaw. He further submits that there is no application of mind. Theorder is only “issue summons to accused”. He, thus, submits thaton merits also the impugned order deserves to be quashed and setaside. He relied on reported judgment, viz. (i) Mahyco VegetableSeeds Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2018 All MR (Cri) 910(SC), and (ii) R. Shridhar Vs. State Department of Agriculture &Anr., 2016 All MR (Cri) 4409.
Decision
6 63-CrWP-1743-22.odt13.In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that a caseis made out to allow the petition.14.The criminal writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause“B” and “C”. [KISHORE C. SANT] JUDGErrd