IMPORTANT POINT
Seizure of defective seeds – Seed Inspector is very much authorized to draw samples and proceed according to law.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in CC No.624 of 2022 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapally, for the offences under Sections 7(b) read with 19 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and sub-clause (c) of the Clause 13 of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983.

2. Heard Sri E.V. Pushpa Vardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner-accused No.2 is a Distributor of seeds and is alleged to have supplied sub-standard sees.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, being the Distributor, cannot be held liable for any alleged low percentage of seed germination when the seeds were distributed in sealed and original packaging condition without any other interference or tampering. Thus, imposing liability on the 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 another 1990 (Supp) SCC 111 and the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench in Devanand and another v. State of Karnataka 2025 KHC-K:750.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner-accused No.2 is a Distributor of M/s. Coromandal (I) 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 Inspector 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 samples were found to be pertaining to the variety of PUJA (NCS-456) BG-II LOT No.015106084, contained 58% germination only and does not confirm the prescribed standards of germination i.e. 75%. Thus, the said copy was served on accused No.1 and thereafter served show cause notice to the Dealer-accused No.1, Distributor-accused No.2 and Marketer-accused No.3. The petitioner herein is accused No.2. Thus, the complaint was lodged by the Seed Inspector before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, for the offence under Sections 7(b) read with Section 19 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and Section 13(c) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983.

8. Section 7(b) of the Seeds Act and Section 13(c) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:-

Section 7(b) of the Seeds Act:

“7. Regulation of sale of seeds of notified kinds or varieties:- No person shall, himself or by any other person on his behalf, carry on the business of selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of any notified kind or variety, unless-

(a) xxxx

(b) such seed conforms to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under clause (a) of section 6;

(c) xxxx

(d) xxxx”

Order 13(c) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983:

“13. Inspection and punishment:

(1) xxxx

(2) xxxx

(3) Where any seed is seized by an Inspector 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 1974) 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), In the said case, the prosecution was launched again