The main legal point established in the judgment is that the police had no authority to investigate the matter under the Seeds Act, and the prosecution was bad in law.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. being Ratu P.S. Case No. 96 of 2017 registered under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Cass, Ranchi.

4. On 18.05.2017, the complaint was filed before the Ratu Police Station stating therein that on the information received, a raid was made in the house of Shiv Prasad Sahu, wherein in a room, different food grains were kept and were not kept in packet. Wrappers of different companies were also recovered. Insecticides were also seized from the place of occurrence, which was not allowed to keep in the house. It has been alleged that said Ram Prasad Sahu and Shiv Prasad Sahu fled away. On the bass of this the FIR has been registered.

5. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on the facts alleged in the FIR, no case of cheating and forgery is made out. He submits that this case is arising out of the Seeds Act, 1966 and Pesticides Act and the offence therein is non-cognizable offence, therefore the police has not authorized to register the FIR and to investigate the matter. He further submits that the procedures under the Seeds Act, 1966 and Pesticides Act have not been complied and no samples of seeds have been given to the petitioners and without awaiting the report of the Seeds Analyst, the instant FIR has been registered. He also submits that the case is arising out of Seeds Act, 1966 and Pesticides Act, the FIR under the Indian Penal Code is against the mandate of law.

6. Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the competent person has filed the FIR and in view of that Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer has filed the complaint and he is the competent authority to file this complaint and to support his contention, he relied on Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit.

7. Rule-23(A) of the Seeds Rule 1968 provides that action to be taken by the Seeds Inspector if the complaint is lodged. For the sake of brevity, Rule-23(A) thereof is quoted hereinbelow:-

“23A. Action to be taken by the Seed Inspector if a complaint is lodged with him.—

(1) If farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that the failure of the crop is due to the defective quality of seeds of any notified kind or variety supplied to him, the Seed Inspector shall take in his possession the marks or labels, the seed containers and a sample of unused seeds to the extent possible from the complaint for establishing the source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the causes of the failure of his crop by sending samples of the lot to the Seed Analyst for detailed analysis at the State Seed Testing Laboratory. He shall thereupon submit the report of his findings as soon as possible to the competent authority.

(2) In case, the Seed Inspector comes to the conclusion that the failure of the crop is due to the quality of seeds supplied to the farmer being less than the minimum standards notified by the Central Government, he shall launch proceedings against the supplier for contravention of the provisions of the Act or these rules.”

8. On perusal of this Rule, which specially provides that the investigation is to be carried by the Seed Inspector in respect of the complaint of the farmer regarding failure of crop due to the defective quality of seeds of any notified kind or variety. Sub-Rule-(2) of the said Rule specifically provides that the Seed Inspector can launch the prosecution only after comes to the conclusio