E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have been shown as A-2 and A-3 in S. T. R. No. 63 of 1990, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Erode. In the same complaint, Manickasundaram, Proprietor, Sri Balamurugan Agro Agencies, sivagiri, has been shown as A-1. First Petitioner is a company and the second petitioner is the Senior Production Executive, Seed Processing Unit of the first petitioner. A-1 to A-3 are being prosecuted, on a private complaint instituted by the respondent, who is the Seed Inspector, Erode, alleging that they had contravened Sccs. 7 (b) read with 6 (a) of the Seeds Act, 1966 punishable under Sec. 19 (a) (i) and Sec. 21 of the same Act.

(2.) AVERMENTS in the complaint show that the respondent visited the shop of A-1,on 23. 8. 1989 and in his presence took three samples of notified paddy seed, IR 20 (labelled seed) weighing 700 gms. , each from the stock kept for sale, for the purpose of analysis. One sample was delivered to a-1under his acknowledgement. Another sample was sent to Seed Analyst, Coimbatore , for his report. Third sample was retained by the respondent. Report of the Seed Analyst dated 8. 9. 1989 revealed that the sample seed, had only 58% germination, as against the minimum required germination of 80% notified by the Government of india. Further probe revealed that the first petitioner had sold the sampleseed to A-1 as per sales delivery note Sl. No. SD 0276, dated 17. 8. 1989. First petitioner was also informed, by the respondent, about the production of sub-standard seeds.

(3.) I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by either counsel. The submissions made by the learned Additional public Prosecutor overlooks, that the right given to the petitioners under Sec. 16 (2) of the Act, commences only after the institution, of a prosecution under this Act. There is no dispute that for the first time petitioners became aware of the instant prosecution only on 3. 5. 1990 intimating 8. 5. 1990 as the first hearing date. After engaging a counsel, petitioners had promptly preferred an application under Sec. 16 (2) of the Act even on 16. 5. 1990. Inspite of the order passed by the learned Magistrate even on 17. 5. 1990, the respondent had neglected to produce the third sample of seed with him, before the Magistrate. Not only the respondent had not complied with the directions of the Magistrate, but had also made it impossible for the petitioners to exercise a valuable right, afforded to them bylaw. It was submitted, with some hesitation, by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that the seeds are still available and they can be produced in court. At the same time, it was also represented by the state, that according to certification of seeds, their life is only for about eight months. Prosecution cannot blow hot and cold. Once Sec. 16 (2) of the Act prescribes a time limit for the Analyst to forward his report, it is easily possible to comprehend, that quick action will have to be taken at every stage for, living organism will have to be protected carefully and rights made available by law either to the prosecution or the accused, should not be allowed to be lost due to avoidable delays. Analysis now, after 5 years, can serve no purpose. I am satisfied that the valuable right conferred by law, on the petitioners, had been made non-exercisable, only due to the ineptitude, carelessness and negligence of the respondent. If this prosecution has to fail, the blame squarely falls on the respondent to because he has not only derelicted his duty, but had also failed to obey the directions of the trial magistrate.