R.SHRIDHAR Vs. STATE DEPARTMENT AGRICULTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this criminal application, the applicant original accused is challenging the criminal proceedings of S.C.C. No. 313 of 2003 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed lodged by respondent No.1 against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 19(a) and 7 (b) of the Seeds Act 1966 and Rules 7, 8 and 10 of Seeds Rules 1968.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present application are as follows:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of provisions of Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act 1966, the applicant's right to send the sample to the Central Seed Testing Laboratory has been lost, as the shelf life of the said seed expired on 24.12.2002. Learned counsel submits that in the explanation offered to the show cause notice issued by respondent No.1, present applicant has controverted the analyst report by pointing out that when the said seed was put in the market, the germination of the said seed was tested and it was 85% in terms of Section 7 of Seeds Act 1966 r.w. Section 12 of the Seeds (Control) Order 1983. It has specifically stated in the explanation that thus question of offering of sub- standard seeds in terms of germination does not arise. Learned counsel submits that inspite of the said explanation, after shelf life of the seed was expired, the complaint was filed before the Magistrate belatedly with no explanation whatsoever stated in the complaint for the delay caused in filing the complaint. Learned counsel submits that the complaint came to be filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 24.2.2003 and summons came to be issued on 24.2.2005 to the present applicant and respondent No.1. In view of sub-section 2 of Section 16 of Seeds Act, only after institution of a prosecution under the Act, the applicant accused on payment of prescribed fee, make an application to the Court for sending any of the samples as mentioned above. In response to the said summons, the applicant and respondent No.2 put their appearances before the court in the year 2005. Thus, the applicant and respondent No.2 have lost their right to send the sample to the Central Seed Testing Laboratory as the shelf life of the seed was expired in the year 2002 itself. The sample become unfit for analysis by the Central Seed Laboratory and it had caused prejudice to the defence of the applicant. Learned counsel submits that thus continuation of said proceeding before the court is nothing but abuse of court process and thus, the said complaint is liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel submits that even the complaint is also barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant, in order to substantiate his contentions, places reliance on the following judgments:-