SHREE MAHALAXMI SEEDS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioners being manufacturer and dealer of the product in question, have prayed, inter alia, that:

(2.) SO far as the relevant factual matrix is concerned, it is averred by the petitioners that respondent No.1 is Seed Inspector appointed as such vide notification dated 14.12.2004 under provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and that in exercise of powers conferred upon him by the Act, he had visited the premises of petitioner No.1 on 1.7.2008 and had drawn / collected sample of hybrid castor variety (triveni pooja). It is also averred that after drawing the said sample, it was forwarded to Seed Testing Laboratory at Gandhinagar. The laboratory, after testing and analysing the sample, found that the percentage of purity of the seeds was upto only 79.84% and accordingly, the seeds were found to be substandard. The laboratory forwarded its report to the respondent whereupon the respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner viz. the manufacturer, the dealer and the officers of manufacturer and dealer. It is also claimed that on receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioners forwarded their reply, however, the said reply did not satisfy the respondent who, after receiving sanction, filed criminal case which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.132 of 2009 before the learned Principal Judge and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Amirgarh.

(3.) THE respondent has filed affidavit and has mentioned the factual backdrop, in which the complaint came to be filed. It appears that in the narration of factual aspects by the petitioners and the respondent, there is no difference or dispute so far as the relevant dates are concerned. The respondent has mentioned that the sample was drawn on 1.7.2008 and for testing the genetic purity, the said sample was forwarded for analysis to the Seed Testing Laboratory at Gandhinagar on 4.7.2008. The germination test report was received on 29.7.2008 and further report was received on 31.12.2008. The respondent has also mentioned that the packing date mentioned on the package of the seeds was found to be May 2008 and expiry was found to be January 2009. the respondent has also claimed that the report, which was made on 31.12.2008, was received by him on 12.1.2009, which specified that the percentage of purity was 79.84% whereas, the minimum requirement is 85% and therefore, the seeds were found to be substandard. Consequently, the show cause notice came to be issued on 12.1.2009 which was replied by the petitioners on 21.1.2009 wherein, the petitioners mentioned that it was a first mistake and therefore, they may be pardoned. It is also claimed by the respondent that the proposal for prosecution was sent to the Director of Agriculture on 12.2.2009 and sanction was granted on 6.3.2009 and thereafter, the complaint came to be filed on 17.4.2009. The respondent has also mentioned that the petitioners applied for reanalysis of the sample under Section 16(2) of the Act, however, since the laboratory at which the petitioners desired that the test for reanalysis may be conducted was shifted from New Delhi to Varanasi, the analysis could not be done. The respondent also submitted that as the shelflife of the seeds expired during this time, the petitioners filed application to drop the proceedings which is rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. The respondent has claimed that: