JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The misc. petition No. 6373/2021 has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 10.12.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No. 378/2019, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance for offence under 8-A, 13(1)(c) Seed Control Order, 1983 read with Section 3 /7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The misc. petition No. 3635/2020 has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 21.11.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No. 346/2019, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance for offence under 8-A, 13(1)(c) Seed Control Order, 1983 read with Section 3 /7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

3. The principle contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis whereof the proceedings of the complaint have been assailed is that the mandatory procedure prescribed for sampling of the seeds has not been followed in this case and, therefore, the proceedings of the complaint are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record the complaint filed in this case by the Seed Inspector cum Agriculture Officer. It is submitted that as per the admitted fact mentioned in the complaint, the samples of the seeds were simply packed in the cotton bags and sent to the laboratory for analysis. He, therefore, contends that the mandatory procedure prescribed in the Seeds Act and Rules was not followed. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Gauri Shanker & Ors. v. State reported in 2011 (2) Cri.LR (Raj) 1685, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings are liable to be quashed as the mandatory procedure of sampling has not been adhered to.

4. Learned PP is not in a position to dispute the fact that the procedure of taking samples of the seed as prescribed under the Act and the Rules has not been followed in this case.

5. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the material on record.

6. The contention of the petitioners is that the fungus found on the seeds was due to the moisture as the samples were taken in the cotton bags and germination of the seeds was found less.

7. It is relevant to quote the relevant portion of the mauka report prepared by the complainant Agriculture Officer which reads as under:

^^mijksDrkuqlkj uewus fodzsrk ds ifjlj ls fu/kkZfjr fof/k ¼cht vf/kfu;e 1966 ds rgr cht fu;e 1968 dh fcUnq la[;k 24] 25 ,oa 26 ,oa cht fu;U=.k vkns'k 1983 ds vuqPNsn 13 ds rgr vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr izfdz;k½ ds vuqlkj fy;s x;s rFkk izR;sd uewus ds fy, fu/kkZfjr izi= ¼5½ dh ikap&ikap izfr;ka rS;kj dj viuh lhy o ihry dh eqnzk ls vafdr fd;kA izR;sd uewuk fu/kkZfjr ek=k 180 gm xzke otu dk diMs dh FkSyh esa j[kdj mlesa izi= ¼5½ dh izfr j[k dj iDds /kkxs ls cka/kk x;k rRi'pkr dBksj eksVs dkxt esa yisVdj dkxt ds fdukjksa dks xksan ;k vU; fpidkus okys inkFkZ ls HkyhHkkafr iSd dj iSfdV dks eksVs /kkxs@lwryh ls dzkWl cka/krs gq;s xkaB yxkbZ xbZ ,oa fodzsrk ls iSdsV ij gLrk{kj djk;s x;s rFkk /kkxs dh xkaB ds mij] uhps o nks vU; txgksa ij piMh ls esjh ihry dh eqnzk vafdr djrs gq, lhYM fd;k x;k ¼cht fu;=a.k vkns'k dh vuqlwfp ds fcUnq la[;k 4 ,] ch o lh ds vuqlkj½A**

(Emphasis supplied)

8. On consideration of the arguments advanced at bar and upon going through the complaint filed in this case, it is evident that the Seed Inspector at the time of taking samples has not followed the mandatory procedure i.e. the manner in which the samples of Seed have to be taken. The samples have simply been packed in cloth bags which is not a procedure perm