HARIYANA BEEJ BHANDAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The misc. petition No. 6373/2021 has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dtd. 10/12/2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No. 378/2019, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance for offence under 8-A, 13(1)(c) Seed Control Order, 1983 read with Sec. 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The misc. petition No. 3635/2020 has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dtd. 21/11/2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No. 346/2019, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance for offence under 8-A, 13(1)(c) Seed Control Order, 1983 read with Sec. 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(3.) The principle contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis whereof the proceedings of the complaint have been assailed is that the mandatory procedure prescribed for sampling of the seeds has not been followed in this case and, therefore, the proceedings of the complaint are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record the complaint filed in this case by the Seed Inspector cum Agriculture Officer. It is submitted that as per the admitted fact mentioned in the complaint, the samples of the seeds were simply packed in the cotton bags and sent to the laboratory for analysis. He, therefore, contends that the mandatory procedure prescribed in the Seeds Act and Rules was not followed. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Gauri Shanker & Ors. v. State reported in 2011 (2) Cri.LR (Raj) 1685, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings are liable to be quashed as the mandatory procedure of sampling has not been adhered to.