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 prosecution illegal.

ORDER :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Manan Mehta, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents.

2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants – original accused persons seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.429 of 2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vayad, District: Arvalli for the offences under Sections 6(a) and 7(b) of the Seeks Act, 1966 read with Section 10 of the Seeds Rules, 1968.

3. The applicant No.1 herein namely 'Navkar Hybrid Seeks Private Ltd.' is the dealer, the applicant No.2 namely 'Bavadiya Vanrajdal Shuklabhai' is the authorised person of the applicant No.1 – firm, and the rest applicants - accused are sale agency of the applicant.

4. It appears from the materials on record that the Agriculture Officer, Vayad, in exercise of his powers under the Seeds Act, 1966 collected samples of cumin seeds variety “NCCH-0002 BG-II”, stage certified, bearing lot No.2015224 from the applicant No.1 for the purpose of analysis. The samples were collected on 21.6.2018. The samples were sent for analysis to the seeds testing laboratory at Vayad, District: Arvalli. The laboratory, in its report dated 10.10.2018, certified the seeds to be substandard. Ultimately, on 2.4.2019, a complaint was filed by the respondent No.1 bearing Criminal Case No.429 of 2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vayad, District: Arvalli for the offences under Sections 6(a) and 7(b) of the Seeks Act, 1966 read with Section 10 of the Seeds Rules, 1968.

5. At this stage, it is important to note that shelf life of the samples was till 25.2.2018. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the prosecution against the applicants should fail on the short ground of violation of Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966. He would submit that under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966, after the institution of the prosecution, the accused is vested with a right to make an application to the Court for sending a part of the sample to the Central Seeds Laboratory for reanalysis. It is submitted that by the time, the complaint came to be filed on 11th April 2014, the samples lost its shelf life. The applicants thereby were deprived of their valuable right of reanalysis. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd (Now known as Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co Pvt Ltrd) and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others [Criminal Appeal No.1092 of 2017 decided on 10th July 2017].

6. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants prays that there being merit in this application, the same be allowed and the proceedings be quashed.

7. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Manan Mehta, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. He submitted that the issue with regard to right of the accused persons under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966 can be looked into by the Trial Court. According to the learned A.P.P., this Court may not go into such issue. The learned A.P.P. submits that there being no merit in this application, the same be rejected.

8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the complaint should be quashed.

9. Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966 reads as under:

“16 Report of Seed Analyst.

(1) …...

(2) After the institution of a prosecution under this Act, the accused vendor or the complainant may, on payment of the prescribed fee, make an application to the Court for sending any of the samples mentioned in clause (a) or clause (c) of subsection (2) of section 15 to the Central Seed Laboratory for its report and on receipt of the application