DR. K.V. SUBBARAO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to assail the proceedings of Cr. Complaint No. 205/2014 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara.

(2.) From the numerous grounds raised in the petition, while addressing the Court, learned counsel Mr. Ramesh Saboo restricted his arguments to the solitary ground for breach of the statutory right available to the accused under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act of challenging the report of State Seed Analyst in support of the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. Mr. Saboo points out from the record that the samples of seeds in question were collected from the vendor on 27.6.2013. The sample was forwarded to the State Seed Analyst on 1.7.2013. When analysis was conducted and the report of the Seed Laboratory, Chittorgarh was received on 12.8.2013, the accused were notified of this report on 6.9.2013 and 24.10.2013. The complaint came to be filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 6.5.2014. Relying upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. (Now Known as Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co Pvt. Ltd) and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. (s) 4017/2017) decided on 10.7.2017 , Mr. Saboo urged that the statutory right available to the accused of challenging the Seed Analyst's report by having the second sample re-analysed from the Central Laboratory as per Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, has been irretrievably frustrated because the complaint itself was filed after expiry of the shelf life of the seeds in question. He contends that as the statutory right available to the accused of challenging the State Seed Laboratory's report was totally frustrated allowing prosecution of the petitioner and the other accused persons in this case is impermissible and amounts to a gross abuse of process of law.

(3.) Learned P.P., vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and urged that repeated notices were served upon the accused intimating them of the Seed Analyst's Report but they failed to respond thereto. They intentionally avoided to provide the requisite information to the Inquiry Officer and that is why the delay occurred which is bonafide. As per the learned P.P., the accused themselves are responsible for causing the delay in filing of the complaint and thus cannot claim advantage thereof.