THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.4862 of 2025

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’) seeking quashment of proceedings in STC No.64 of 2021 on the file the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy (for short ‘the trial Court’) against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2.

2. Heard Mr.J.Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.

3. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the complaint filed by the de-facto complainant-respondent No.2.

4. Vide USR No.43822 of 2025, notice was sent to respondent No.2. Despite receipt of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.12.2018, the de- facto complainant – respondent No.2, who is Mandal Agricultural Officer, Zaheerabad Mandal, Sangareddy District has inspected the premises of the petitioners and drawn the seed samples as per the procedure laid down under Sections 14(a) and 15(1)(2) of the Seed Act, 1966 for the purpose of testing by duly serving notice vide Form- VI. The Seed Inspector has drawn seed sample from the premises of accused No.1, Hybrid Maize variety bearing Lot No.13840749 with three samples @ each 1 Kg from the shop of accused No.1 as per the procedure and they were taken in the clean dry cloth bag and tied by putting information slip inside the sample and a copy of its produced. It has been property labeled and sealed and the said samples were drawn under the cover of Panchanama. Thus accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed offence by violating Section 7(b) of the Seeds Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that among three representative samples prepared, the second representative sample was sent to the Seed Analyst, Assistant Director of Agriculture, Seed Testing Lab, Rajendranagar on 17.12.2018 for analysis. Thereafter, the sample analyst had provided the analytical report after analysis of the said sample, through ROC No.1024/18-19, dated 07.01.2019 declaring the sample as sub-standard and does not confirm to the prescribed minimum seed standards of Hybrid Maize Germination 80% as against 90% is minimum germination standards and the said analytical report was served to the AI on 13.01.2019 and obtained acknowledgement on it. The same Form VII/Post copy confirmation and acknowledgment copy are produced.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the samples which have been drawn from the premises of the petitioners, which have been declared as sub-standard and does not confirm to the prescribed minimum seed standards of Hybrid Maize Germination 80% as against 90% is minimum Germination standards as per the analytic report issued by the seed expert as per the procedure contemplated under Section 16(2) of the Seed Act. The petitioner was gravely prejudiced and as the right of the petitioner as provided under Section 16 of the Seeds Act stood taken away.

Therefore, he seeks to allow this criminal petition.

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that it is an admitted fact that the sample was drawn from the premises of the petitioner and not from the premises of the suppliers and the analytical report given by the Seed Analyst, Assistant Director of Agriculture, Seed Testing Lab, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. The petitioner was not given any opportunity after sending the sample to the Central Seed Laboratory as per Section 16 (2) of the Seed Act, however, it does not have any major impact in the proceedings. Therefore, prayed for dismiss the criminal petition.

9. Perused the material available on record.

10. For better appreciation of the facts of the case, it is apposite to extract Section 16 of the Seed Act which reads as under:-

16. Report of Seed Analyst-

(2) After the institution of a prosecution under this Act, the accused vendor or the