Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Rafel Del Riyo, Managing Director, Syngenta India Limited – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 102512 of 2021
Decided On : 08-02-2022
Seeds Act, 1966 - Section 6(a) r/w 19(a), 16 - Seed sample declared sub-standard - Show cause notice was issued by complainant to Company along with report of Seed Analyst, alleging that seed was sub-standard and sought a reply at hands of Company to show cause as to why proceedings should not be initiated against Company - Show cause notice was received by Company long after expiry of three days given to submit its reply - Company responded to show cause notice disputing findings of Seed Analyst and placed on record several violations of provisions of Act while collecting and analyzing sample that was submitted and also contended that since collection and determination of seed was in violation of provisions of Act, entire process is a nullity - High Court Government Pleader contend that petitioner is liable for alleged substandard quality of seed and it is for petitioner to come out dean in trial by producing such evidence which would demonstrate quality of seed to prescribed germination - Whether complaint was maintainable without Company being made an accused in proceedings - Whether entire proceedings get vitiated on account of prejudice and violation of Section 16 of Act.
Finding of the Court:
Entire proceedings would stand vitiated as complaint itself, without at outset company being made a party, would not be maintainable - Procedural violation causing prejudice will have to be construed strictly and it cannot be said that trial should continue notwithstanding right under sub-section (2) of Section 16 being taken away by indolence of respondent/complainant - Both with regard to Company not being made a party and entire proceedings getting vitiated on account of prejudice being caused to accused, this is a fit case where this Court has to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and obliterate proceedings against petitioner, failing which such proceedings would become an abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice - Criminal law is set in motion by departments particularly empowered to launch prosecution against violators of provisions of respective enactments, as a matter of course, as is done in case at hand - It is head of such Departments should endeavour to put their house in order and direct officers empowered to initiate or launch prosecution, if they chose to do so, to do so without any loss of time, as administrative indolence cannot be and should not be countenanced.
Result: Criminal Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner in this petition calls in question the proceedings in C.C. No. 7/2021, pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Byadgi, Haveri District for offences punishable under Section 6(a) read with Section 19(a) of the Seeds Act, 1966 (‘the Act’ for short).
2. Brief facts, as projected by the prosecution, are as follows:
3. On 02-03-2021, a show cause notice was issued by the complainant to the Company/Syngenta India Limited along with the report of the Seed Analyst, alleging that the seed was sub-standard and sought a reply at the hands of the Company to show cause as to why proceedings should not be initiated against the Company. The show cause notice was received by the Company on 11-03-2021 long after expiry of three days given to submit its reply. The Company responded to the show cause notice on 30-03-2021 disputing the findings of the Seed Analyst and placed on record several violations of the provisions of the Act while collecting and analyzing the sample that was submitted and also contended that since collection and determination of seed was in violation of the provisions of the Act, the entire process is a nullity.
4. After filing the reply on 30-03-2021 neither the Company nor the petitioner heard anything from the complainant. The petitioner then received information through accused Nos. 2 and 3, the dealers, that a complaint was registered by the complainant in Complaint No. 7 of 2021 before the competent Court by registering it on 6-03-2021. On registration of the said complaint, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 6 and 19 of the Act, which has driven the petitioner to this Court calling in question the entire proceedings.
5. Heard Sri. Hasmath Pasha, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent-State.
6. The learned senior counsel would urge the following contentions:
(ii) He would contend that under Section 16 of the Act which deals with the report of the Seed Analyst, if the sample taken is against the interest of the Dealer, Trader or the Company they would have an opportunity to get a second opinion in the matter.
(iii) He would submit that the shelf life of the seed expired on 18-02-2021 but the show cause notice itself is issued after the expiry of the shelf life of the seed and the proceedings initiated long thereafter has caused prejudice and has vitiated entire proceedings.
7. The learned senior counsel would place reliance upon the following judgments:
Right of the accused to get the sample tested again, a right that is conferred under the Insecticides Act gets deprived if the proceedings are not initiated without any loss of time.
prosecution has sufficient time after the receipt of the report from the State Seed Laboratory to expeditiously prefer the prosecution, which could have provided sufficient time to the Court to prese....
Delay in filing the complaint, leading to the expiry of the shelf life of the samples, deprives the accused of their right to challenge the report of the local seeds testing laboratory, rendering the....
The right to reanalyze seeds under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act is statutory and must be exercised within the shelf-life; failure to do so results in the complaint being time-barred and prejudicial....
The right of the accused to retest seeds and the vicarious liability of persons in charge of a company under the Seeds Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
