Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—The present miscellaneous petitions have been filed challenging the orders taking cognizance against the petitioner dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, district Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Cases No. 572/2007 and 573/2007 respectively, under Section 7/13 read with sub-section (B) of Sections 6 Section 13 and 14(1) of the Seeds Act, as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Revision Petitions No. 40/2008 and 41/2008 respectively vide impugned orders dated 21.11.2008.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present miscellaneous petitions are set-out here-in-below. Two complaints were filed by the Seeds Inspector under the Seeds Act against the petitioners in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar (for short, "the trial Court") on 25.10.2007 with the allegations that the Seed Inspector went to the premises of M/s. Rajasthan Seeds Store on 20.10.2007 and took samples of "Deshi" Kapas in Criminal Case No. 572/2007 and American Kapas in Criminal Case No. 573/2007 after making payment thereof. It is alleged that the seeds were got analysed from the State Seeds Laboratory, Durgapura, Jaipur, from where a report was received that the germination rate of the seeds was found to be 58% as against the minimum requirement of 65% as per the Seeds Act and as such the seeds were found to be of sub-standard quality. It has further been alleged in the complaint that subsequent to receipt of the report, the manufacturer Vishnu Seeds Company (of which the petitioners are also the partners) was also given a notice intimating the firm about the report of the Laboratory. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the said complaints, proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners who are the partners of Vishnu Seeds Company by the order dated 29.10.2007. The petitioners assailed the said order dated 29.10.2007 by way of two separate revision petitions (Nos. 40/2008 and 41/2008) and in the revision petitions, a specific argument was raised that the mandatory provisions of the Seeds Act and the Rules framed thereunder regarding the manner in which the samples were to be taken, were not followed. Objection was also raised that the firm had already nominated one Brij Mohan as the responsible person for the performance of day to day affairs of the firm and the licence was also exclusively in the name of Shri Brij Mohan and as such the prosecution of the other partners of the firm, in absence of any allegation regarding their participation in the day to day affairs of the firm, was absolutely illegal. The learned Revisional Court observed that the objection which the petitioners wanted to raise before the revisional court was not taken before the trial court and as such the revisional court held that the order of the trial court could not be interfered with under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and consequently the revision petitions were dismissed filed by the petitioners vide impugned order(s) dated 21.11.2008.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the cognizance orders and all the subsequent proceedings against them in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar for the violation of the Seeds Act.

4. Assailing the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court and the revisional court, the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised three contentions; firstly, that the prosecution of the petitioners was not in accordance with law for the reason that whenever there is a prosecution of partners of a firm then it has to be averred in the complaint that the partners, who were sought to be prosecuted, were responsible for the its day to day affairs. It has been submitted that there is no allegation in the complaint as to how the petitioners were responsible for the conduct of affairs of the firm. Placing reli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document