An FIR against a seed dealer can be maintained under the Essential Commodities Act despite claims of the dealer not being the manufacturer; defenses should be raised at trial.

ORDER

(20.11.2020)

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in connection with Crime No.854/2019 registered at Police Station-Jahangirabad, District- Bhopal, for the offence punishable under Section 3 /7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act 1955’)

2. As per prosecution case, on 19.07.2019, complainant-S.K. Sharma, Agriculture Development Officer, Block Fanda, District-Bhopal has submitted an application in Police Station-Jahangirabad requesting to register the F.I.R against the Director of Vindhya Agro Care i.e. present petitioner for violating the provisions of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 (hereinafter referred as 'Order 1983'). It is mentioned in the complaint that on 30.06.2018, he took sample of paddy from aforesaid firm and sent to laboratory, situated at Indore for examination, in which sample is found substandard. Therefore, police has registered the FIR against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 3 /7 of Act, 1955.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR registered against the present petitioner is abuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed. He submits that petitioner is not manufacturer of seeds and he was only running sales center and thus he is protected under Section 7 of Seeds Rules, 1968. The only allegation against the present petitioner is that seeds which were seized from his sales center, are found substandard whereas it is for the manufacturer to deal with the aforesaid requirements. The petitioner has no role in production of seeds. It is further submitted that in the present circumstances of the case, provision of Rule 15 of Order 1983 is not attracted. He further submits that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before suspending the license. It is further argued that various factors are responsible to affect the seed quality like seed storage condition, seed moisture contained, insect infection and many other environmental factors but the testing report does not indicate that which of the factor has been violated. Therefore, on the basis of such report, the action taken by the authority is erroneous. The suspension order is also based on incomplete list of farmers who had purchased the seeds from the petitioner. He further submits that even if it is assumed that any violation was done by the petitioner, no offence under Act 1955 be made out as there is special enactment of Seeds Act, 1966 , for maintaining standard of seeds and others requirements. As per Seeds Act, 1966 if any contravention of any provision of the Act and Rules is made, same is punishable only with fine of Rs.500/- for the first offence under Section 19 of Seeds Act, 1966 . Under Cr.P.C. Section 155 also prescribes that when information is given to an officer In-charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall record the substance of the information in the prescribed form and refer the informant to the concerning magistrate. Here in the case, the offence levelled is bailable offence in view of the Section 10-A of Act, 1955. He further submits that petitioner has not violated any Rules prescribed under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983. He submits that in case the offence is disclosed under the Seeds Act, then only Seeds Inspector is empowered to launch the prosecution in respect of contravention made thereunder. Therefore, the proceedings under E.C. Act is improper and contrary to law. In suppor