IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
M/s. Bayer Bio-Science Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through District Agriculture and Seed Inspector, Zilla Parishad, Akola - Respondent
Criminal Application (APL) No. 465 of 2024 And Criminal Application (APL) No. 466 of 2024
Decided On : 05-02-2025
(A) Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009 - Section 13(2) - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Applicants sought to quash proceedings for alleged violations of the Act, asserting that the Seed Inspector lacked authority to file complaints under the Act. The court found that the complaint was not filed by the Controller or an authorized officer, rendering it invalid. (Paras 6, 10, 12)
(B) Fair Opportunity - The court emphasized the necessity of providing an opportunity for re-analysis of seed samples, as mandated by the Act, which was denied in this case. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, a seed manufacturing company, faced complaints from a Seed Inspector regarding the quality of cotton seeds. The complaints were based on laboratory findings, but the applicants contended that the Seed Inspector was not authorized to file such complaints.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the complaints were invalid as they were not filed by the Controller, and the applicants were denied a fair opportunity to re-analyze the seed samples.
Issues: The main issues were the authority of the Seed Inspector to file complaints and the denial of the opportunity for re-analysis of seed samples.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that only the Controller or authorized officers can file complaints under the Act, and the denial of re-analysis constituted an abuse of process.
Result: Applications allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as, the “Code”), the applicants prays for quashing of the proceeding in Criminal Case No.5136/2019 and 5137/2019 pending with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as, the “Maharashtra Cotton Seeds Act, 2009”). The applicant No.1 is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. M/s. Bayer Bio-Science Private Limited is the company which manufactures seeds and engaged in the business of production and marketing of hybrid seeds such as cotton, Corn Paddy, Pearl Millet, Wheat and Mustard. The company carrying on the business of production and marketing of various seeds across India. The applicant is also holding the licence under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds Act, 2009 to sell and storage of cotton seeds in the State of Maharashtra. The Directorate of Agriculture, Office of Commissionerate of Agriculture, Maharashtra State, Pune had granted licence for carrying out business of genetic seeds and validity of the said licence from 2.6.2017 to 1.6.2020, bearing licence No.LCCD10010017 issued on 19.3.2019.
4. The respondent is a public servant and designated as District Agriculture Officer and Seed Inspector (Quality and Control) for entire agriculture development office, Agriculture Department, Zilla Parishad, Akola. That the respondent is Seed Inspector appointed under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds Act, 2009 vide notification dated 13.10.2010.
5. On 21.5.2019 the respondent Seed Inspector visited the premises of applicant No.1 and drive sample of seeds of cotton and divided it into three parts. Out of three seed samples one portion was handedover to the applicant No.1 and his signature was obtained on Form No.VIII. As per Section 7(2) of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds Act, 2009, the Seed Inspector is having power to enter, search any premises and draw samples and detain or seize the cotton seeds. The Seed Inspector gave a notice to the present applicant on 21.5.2019 with an intention for taking sample of seed from stock for the purpose of test or analysis in Form No.VI and drive sample in Form No.VIII in respect of hybrid Cotton Safal-555 Non-BT Lot No.4172800006, bearing sample No.23012600420192012. The second portion of seed sample was sent to analyst on 28.5.2019 in Form V to the Seed Testing Laboratory on 28.5.2019. In perusal to that the said Testing Laboratory, Nagpur forwarded his report dated 6.6.2019. On the basis of report from the Laboratory the Seed Inspector alongwith said report issued show cause notice on 2.7.2019 to the applicants thereby called upon them to tender an explanation regarding adverse findings recorded by the Seed Testing Laboratory, Nagpur. On 20.6.2019 the said show cause notice was replied by the applicants by denying all allegations made in the said show cause notice. Being dissatisfied with the reply given by the applicant No.1, the respondent Seed Inspector had served the notice on 23.9.2019 informing that he is intending to file a complaint in the Court for the violation of provisions of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds Act and accordingly filed complaint bearing No.5137/2019. Similarly, another complaint was filed by the respondent on an allegation that on 21.5.2019 he intends to visit the company for taking sample of seed from stock for the purpose of test or analysis in Form No.VI and accordingly drew sample in Form No.VIII in respect of hybrid Cotton Safal-555 Non-BT Lot No.4172800006 bearing sample No.23012600420192012. The second portion of seed sample was sent to analyst in Form No.V to the Seed Testing Laboratory, Nagpur on 28.5.2019. The report of Seed Testing Laboratory was received
Only the Controller or authorized officers can file complaints under the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds Act, and denial of re-analysis of seed samples constitutes an abuse of process.
Quashing upheld where no incriminating seizure from accused, prosecution rests solely on co-accused statement, IPC cheating/forgery ingredients absent, and police investigation invalid for non-cogniz....
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....
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....
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.
A distributor can be prosecuted under the Seeds Act for supplying sub-standard seeds despite the seeds being in sealed packaging, confirming the liability established under relevant statutory provisi....
Seizure of defective seeds – Seed Inspector is very much authorized to draw samples and proceed according to law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.