Criminal petition filed to quash proceedings under the Seeds Act, 1966. The court allowed the petition, holding that inordinate delay and loss of right to second sample analysis necessitated quashing of the case.
Proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2011 before II Additional Munsif Magistrate Court, Ongole are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI
Criminal Petition No.9179 of 2011
ORDER:
This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate Court, Ongole, Prakasam District, which is filed seeking for prosecution of the petitioners for the offence under Section 7(b) read with Section 19 of Seeds Act, 1966.
The case of the prosecution is that on 31.07.2007, there was inspection of the shop of the petitioners and samples were collected from the selected seeds samples of paddy and on the same day the sample was sent for chemical analysis and analyst report was received on 27.08.2007 and the same was served on 08.09.2007 and the complaint was filed on 19.02.2008 but was returned on 20.02.2008 and the said complaint was re-submitted on 21.01.2011 and the summons were issued on 21.01.2011.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were deprived of this valuable right of sending the second sample for analysis. He placed reliance on the ruling of M/s.MATHA VENKATESWARA RAO AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF A.P.1 , which is also the case of under Seeds Act, 1966 wherein the Court observed that the time taken for obtaining sanction for prosecution not to be excluded, Act does not prescribe sanction as condition precedent for prosecution after receipt of analysts’ report, shelf-life of seeds expired by the date of filing of the complaint thereby defeating the valuable right of the petitioners to send the sample for second analysis. The Court also observed at para 3 of the said judgment that Section 19 of the Act prescribes fine upto Rs.500/- for the first offence and in cases where the
1 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 558 (A.P.)
same accused is found guilty of an offence under the Act for the second time, imprisonment upto six months or fine upto Rs.1000/-. In this case also there is no allegation that the petitioners committed the similar offence earlier also. The Court, in the said judgment, observed that in such circumstances maximum punishment would be only a fine upto Rs.500/- each, and so as per Section 468 Cr.P.C., the limitation is six months. In this case also the complaint is filed beyond six months and hence cannot be sustained.
The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in
MUKESH KUMAR MITTAL Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA2 wherein, the right given under Section 16(2) of the Act was dealt with and the Court held that due to inordinate delay of launching prosecution by the complainant, the petitioner has lost his valuable right of requesting the Court to send the second sample to Central Seed Laboratory for analysis under Section 16(2) of the Act.
For the above reasons, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate Court, Ongole, Prakasam district are quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE T. RAJANI
Date: 18.09.2018 LSK
2 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 274
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under the Seeds Act should be quashed due to delay depriving the petitioners of the right to send a second sample for analysis.
Whether the limitation period under Section 468 Cr.P.C. bars prosecution where the complaint was filed beyond six months.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
MATHA VENKATESWARA RAO AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF A.P.Relied on¶6
M/s.MATHA VENKATESWARA RAO AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF A.P.
MUKESH KUMAR MITTAL Vs. STATE OF TELANGANARelied on¶10
MUKESH KUMAR MITTAL Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI
T. RAJANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
