Allowed

N.Venkateswara Rao and 2 Others v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC5 Jul 2022CRLP/2485/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal proceedings under CrPC Section 482 regarding alleged illegal manufacture and sale of BT-II cotton seeds. Court held that BT-II seeds are deregulated and no GEAC approval is required if a valid license exists, even if the specific variety is not explicitly listed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 434 of 2021 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Alair are hereby quashed.

N.Venkateswara Rao and 2 Others Vs The… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH^{DAY OF JULY}

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN}

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO: 2485 OF 2022}

¶7

Between:

¶8

N.Venkateswara^{Rao,Sio. sambaiah, occ.Business. Aged 50 years,-Director} of frrftt. Surya Seeds^{Ltd.,H.No.3-50,Abutting'NH-64,Yellampet, IVedchal} District.

¶9

z. f.teetjAitaiah, S/o.^{Narasimha,Occ. BusinessAged 45 years, R/o. H'No 5-19,} Gundala, Yadadri Bhongir^District

¶10

s. ierfaboina Yadaiah @i^{Giri Yadav' Occ.Business S/o' Yakaiah,A-ged41}

¶11

ye;ia, Fyo. Kamareddy-gudem Village, Devaruppala Manual, Ja!'goqrl District' -..PETITIONERS/A1^{TO A3}

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by Public ProsecutorHig-h Coqt'HVf e.1ab,ad} z. o.santosni, Seed l-nspector'and^{Mandal Agriculture officer, Gundal, Yadadri} Bhongir District

¶14

...RES'.NDENT/..M'LA'NANT

¶15

Petition under Section^{482 of cr.P.cpraying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of criminal Petition,the High courtmay be} pleased to quash the cc.No.43 4t2021 on^{the file of the JudicialFirstClass} Magistrate, Alair, Yadadri-Bhongir.

¶16

I.A. N O:1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under section⁴⁸² of^{cr.P .c prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of^{Groundsof criminalPetition,the High court maybe} pleased to stay all further^proceedings including^{appearanceof the petitioners/A'1} io A3 in CC.No.4341202'1 on^{the file of JudicialFirst Class Magistrate,Alair,} Yadadri-Bhongir.

¶18

This Petition coming on^{for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of} Grounds of criminal Petition^{and upon hearingthe arguments of sri K.V.BHANU} PRASAD, Advocate for the^{Petitionersand of the AdditionalPublic Prosecutor} (TG) on behalf of the Respondent^{No.1 and for the Respondent No 2 not} appearing in^person or through^advocate.

¶19

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶20

HO:i'BLT" SIII JL'S'I'ICT, K. LAKSTI}IA\

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2,185 OF 2022

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The present criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 434 o1'2021 pending on the file of the I{on'ble Judicial First-CIass Magistrate, Alair, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

¶24

lleard Mr. K.V. BhanLr Prasad, learned counsel for thc. Petitioners and Mr. Khaja Vizarat Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for Responderlt No. I . t)cspite sen, icc ol norice.. none appears on behall of'respondcnt No.2.

¶25

3, F acts ol' the Casc

¶26

i) According to the prosecution, on 04.08.2020 at around l6:00 hours, the de I-acto complainant who is the Seed Inspector & Mandal Agriculture Officer. Gundala, launched a written complaint against the Petitioners herein. According to the said cornplaint, the de facto complainant inspected the premiscs of M/s Agro Rythu Seva Kendram, Gr,rndala, run by Petitioner No. 3/A3 on 03.07.2020.

¶27

ii) On inspection, the de lacto complainant lbund that Petitioner No. 3 was selling and had storecl 90 packets of cottor.r

¶28

¶29

¶30

KL,..I Crl.P. N0.2485 of2022

¶31

variety Kakatiya BT II^(SCH 627) seeds.^{'I'he de facto complainant} also stated that the said seeds^{were produced by Petitioner No. I who} runs a company in the name o1'Surya Seeds^{Ltd. Further, it is stated} that the Petitioner No. l/Al supplied^{the seeds to Petitioner No. 2/A2} u,ho in turn sold it to Petitioner No. J rvho later sold it to^{the farmers.} -lherefore, the de lacto complatnant in its conrplainant alleges that the ['ctitioner No. t had license onlv to manulacture^{notified varieties of} seecls which does r-rot include cotton^{seeds. ltis alleged thatthe} I)etitioner No. I did not have a^{valid licenseto sell cottonseeds in the} narne of Kakatiya BT ll^(SCFI 627)^{without the approval of the} GI:AC/ICAR. According to the de^{lacto complainant, such illegally} rnanr-rfactured seeds were marketcd an sold^{by PetitionerNos. 2 and3} which resulted in wronglul gain to them and in loss an cheating^{to the} Governrnent and public

¶32

iii) Based on the complaint of the de f'acto complainant,^FIR was registercd vide Cr. No. 87 of 2020. The said crime^was challenged belore this Courr^vidc Crl.P.No.^{3707 of 2020 and an} interin.r order dated 14.09.2020^w'as passed in^{lavour of the Petitioners} directing tl.re police ot-flcers not to arrest till the^{pendencyof Crl.P.No.} j707 o1'2020.

¶33

¶34

K t,. J Crl P No 2185 or'2022

¶35

i") While things stood thus, Charge Sheet dated¹⁷ .01.2022 was filed by the investigating officer and the sarre was taken on^{flle as} C.C. No. 434 of 2021. The Petitioners herein/Accused^{were charged} with Sections 1208, 420, 487 r/w Section 3,1 ol the Indian^Penal Code.

¶36

v) Therefore, the present criminal petition is filed challenging the proceedings in C.C. No. 434 o12021^.

¶37

4. Contentions of the Petitioners

¶38

i) Once a valid license exists, the license holder is entitied^to

¶39

deal with all the notified varietics ol seeds. Relying^{on an Express} Memo dated 09.05.2017 issued by the ol'fice of Commissioner^ot' Agriculture, State of Telangana i1 was contended^{that there is no} requirement to include all the seed varieties on the Iicense.

¶40

ii) Further, relying on the order dated 26.03.2021^{passedby the} Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.²⁰⁴⁷⁵ of^202l ,it^{was contended} that BT Cotton seeds are a^{permittedvariety and can be manuthctured} and sold in presence of a valid license

¶41

¶42

ar.O. ro.rr,,,rlllii' iii) If at all the seeds rvere sold without the approval of GEAC/ICAR approval, the competent authority to take action is GEAC and not the police officials.

¶43

iv) The proceedings are tainted with mala fides and are liable to be quashed.

¶44

Con tcn ti ons of th eliesD 0n den ts

¶45

It was contended that serious allegations exist and the I',etitioners have to prove their innocence during the course of triar.

¶46

Fi ntlin s of the C-'o rr rt

¶47

i) A perusal ol. the charge sheet reveals that rhe allegations against the petitioner/accused are that theywere invorved in the sare or. BT - II Cotton Seeds. According to the Respondents, the Petitioners/Accused cannot manufacture and se, BT- II cotton seeds as the same were not included in the license granted to Surya Seeds Ltd. The Respondents admit that Surya Seeds Ltd. had a license but the same did not permit manufacturing of BT _ II Cotton Seeds. F urther, it was alleged thar BT. - II Cotton Seeds were being nranufactured without rhe approval of GEAC/ICAR.The said corr [en t ions canltot lrL, accepted.

¶48

¶49

It. .i Cri P^\or..lS< ollill:

¶50

ii) It is relevant to nole that BT- ll Cotton Seeds^are deregulated and can be sold b1' any^{person having} a^validlicense Further, such license does not haVe to expressly^{include thatthe} licensee is permitted to rnanufacture BT- II Cotton Seeds.^{The satle} was also held by the learned single^judge olthe Andhra^{Pradesh t-ligh} Court in order dated 26.03.202<sup>passed in W.P. No. 20475 of 202 l. ln the said case, the learned single^judge also held^{that CEAC approval} to manufacture BT - [l Cotton Seeds is not necessary^{as the sameis} deregulated. This Courl agrees with the view taken by^{the iearned} single^judge in W.P. No.20475 o1202 I^{and the relevant paragraphs} are extracted below:

¶51

"6. As far as the question of B.T. Cotton Hr brid Seetls not bein mentioned in the licencc is c oncerned.^this Ho n 'ble Court had considered sinrilar^{issues in thc} order dated 22.06.201'l in W.P.No.l8237^{of 2017.ln that} case. seizu re of stock n'as c hlllensetl on^{tltc grountlthat} the dealcr was entitled to tleal^{t ithsectls* hosc} varieties rre not mentioned in^{theliccnccsirenin} Form-ll or Fornr-C.^'l'his Court ,:rl'ter^{considerins thc} su bm issions of both sides hrt tl held that non-nrcntion^ol' difl'crent varieties in thc^{secdIicence is not in violation} of thc Seeds^(Co ntro[)^{Order. 1983.}

¶52

¶53

()

¶54

Nl.. .l Crl P No 248J ot :022

¶55

In I.A.No. I ot' 2020 in W.l).No.25430 ol 2020. this Court considered thc issuc ()l'the right ol thc authorities to insist upon dealers. rnanuf.acturers and traders of seeds to mention the variety and kind ol.seeds also in the checklists. In the interlocutory order dated 30.12.2020, the learned Single Judge. after considering this issue, had found a prima lacie case that such requirement to name subvarieties is not available to the authorities. g. Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, Ieamed counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the deflnition ol .kind, in Section 2 (g) of the Seeds Act. i966 ro contend that the requirement under the Act is onll. to give the gencric natne ol the seed. such as. Cabbagc. Brinjal. etc. In the present case. the cerlificate issued to the petitioner in For.rn-C includescotton. He submits that in vicr.i, of'such inciusion. the requirement of thc proi,isions ol borh the Sccds Act. 1966 atrd the Seeds (Control) Order. l9g3 are cornplied rvith. XXXX

¶56

9.^'I'he icarrred Additional Adr ocate General ivould subnrit that apan liorn giving the gcneral description of the seeds, the provisions of the Seeds (Control) Order, l9g3 and rhe Seeds Act, 1966 and that the requiretnents set out in Table_ A, B & C of the Seeds Act, 1966, clearly requires the rnention ol the sub_varieties aiso.

¶57

In view olthe orders olthis Court in W.p.No. 1g237 of 2017. I an of the view that the requirement ,"ruior.a by the learned Additional Advocate Ceneral as well as the

¶58

C.rt t, \o l.{Ji^{(jt ll)tl}

¶59

out in thc irrrPugned^{ordcr ars n0t} requlrement^set mandator)'.

¶60

I l. The second ground raised in the impug ned order^is the re o uirerncnt to^{o bt:r} in^{n ecessar\Dermission['ront} the GEAC und^{er the 1989 Rules. Theproceedinssset} out bv the^{petitionersho\1 s that as far as B'T' Cotton} seeds answerin s the^{desc ri} otion^{of events \lO-l} -i985 arc concern ed.^{the same have been dercgulated.This} can be seen f^{rom the inlbrmation gir en uncl er the Right} to Inforrnatio^{n u nder RTI Act ,2005 bY theMinistrv of} Ilnviron nr ent . Forest^{antl Clim nte Chan ge.Government} of I ndia in F.No.C-12 019/l/2017-cs-l^I I dated 10.0u.2017^rr Itich states^{thxl B.'I'.Cottonansw enn} the descrintion^of MON-1s985^{had been} comrnerc^ia llv a nprovedⁱ nthcv^{ear 2006 itself.}

¶61

iii) Therefore,^{this Coufi cannot accept the contentions that} the Petitioners^{were selling ll-f , II cottonSeeds withoutthere beirrg a} valid license and^{no approvallrom CF.AC ivas sought'}

¶62

iv) tt^r.vas also^{allegedthat Petitioner No' I had printed l'alse} and misleading^{informationconcerning the seeds that were beingsold} by Petitioner^{Nos. 2 and 3. According to this Coutt, the said} contention is^{vague and does not mention the natureof falseand} misleading information.^{Further,as stated abovethe sale of BT - ll} Cotton Seeds^{is not illegalif the samewas sold by a person havinga}

¶63

¶64

Kl...l Crl P N0.2485 ot2012

¶65

valid iicense rt is arso not the case of rhe Respondents that the seeds sold were spurious or were ol'sub_standard quality. Therefore. in absence ol'any specific arJegations regarding the nature of farse and ,,isleading inforrnation, this court cannot accept the contentions of tlre Respondenr.^"l-hus, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be q uashed

¶66

Conclusion:

¶67

In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 434 of 2021 pending on the file of the Ilon,ble Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Alair, Yadadri-Bhongir District, are hereby quashed against the petitioners - accused Nos. I to 3.

¶68

As a sequel. the rniscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the C-rinrinal^petition shall sland closed

¶69

sd/-K.ONESI[/ DEPUTY^REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' Cn) SECTION^OFFICER

¶70

To 1. The Judicial First Class lvlagistrate, Alair'-Bhon-gir Yadadri' i. +;; cc;6^{ir," pJori" piol"elJtor, High court for the state of Telansana,} Hvderabad^(OUT) s. 6i,l-cC to^{dri k.v.ehun,Prasad' Advocate (oPUc)}

¶71