Point of Law: 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 present the accused to avail the statutory defence available to them.

JUDGMENT :

1. Common issue has arisen in all the captioned matters, by consent of both the parties, the matters were heard finally and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the complaints under Section 6 and 7 of the Seeds Act, 1966 read with Section 10 of Seeds Rules, 1968 being:

(i) Criminal Case No.01 of 2019 in Cr.M.A. No.13348 of 2019 pending in the Court Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Varahi-Santalpur;

(ii) Criminal Case No.2193 of 2018 in Cr.M.A. No.13372 of 2019 pending in the Court Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surendranagar;

(iii) Criminal Case No.36 of 2019 in Cr.M.A. No.13386 of 2019 pending in the Court Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patan.

3. Facts in all these maters are more or less same. The applicants have challenged the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate on the ground that the applicants are prejudiced, since they could not avail the right of getting the sample seeds examined by the Central Seed Testing Laboratory, as the sample lost its shelf-life and therefore the applicants were deprived of their valuable right of reanalysis.

4. Mr. S.K. Patel, learned advocate for the applicants in all the captioned matters relying on the judgment of Khodiyar Agro Through Trada nanlal Gandhubhai & Ors. Vs. Agriculture officer Shri J.D. Gondaliya & Ors., reported in 2018 LawSuit (Guj.) 24, wherein reliance has been made in the Supreme Court judgment in case of Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. (Now known as Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Pvt. Ltd.) & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [Criminal Appeal No.1092 of 2017 dated 10.07.2017], submitted that Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966, permits the accused – vendor or the complainant to make an application to the Court for sending the sample to the Central Seed laboratory for its report.

5. Advocate Mr. Patel, submitted that such right can be availed by the accused – vendor after the institution of the prosecution under the Seeds Act and the report of the Central Seed Laboratory shall supersede the report given by the seeds analyst. Mr. Patel contended that after the prosecution was launched against the applicants in all the captioned matters and prior to the date of appearance on issuance of summons, shelf life of sample got lost and therefore the applicants could not have the benefit of the provisions made under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966. Mr. Patel submitted that as there was deprivation of the right guaranteed by law to the accused – vendor, further proceedings in the Court of Judicial Magistrate would be futile and therefore has prayed for quashing the prosecution in all the matters.

6. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP for the respondent State, submitted that when the prosecutions were launched before the concerned Judicial Magistrates, the sample seeds were within the shelf-life and the report of the Gandhinagar Laboratory declared the samples as sub-standard and therefore submitted that the institution of the prosecution cannot be considered as invalid. She submits that there could not be any contravention to the rights of the accused causing any prejudice to the defence. Ms. Monali Bhatt, submits that after the opportunity of explanation to the applicants was given, under requisite sanction, the prosecution was launched. Hence, supporting the launching of the prosecution, Ms. Monali, learned APP, prayed for rejecting of all the matters.

7. In Criminal Misc. Application No.13348 of 2019, the relevant particulars are as under: