Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company ... vs State Of Maharashtra At The ... on 7 April, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 apl346,347,348.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.346 OF 2015
1) Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd.,
A Company registered under the Companies
Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at
Resham Bhavan, 78, Veer Nariman Road,
Mumbai and Office at Dawalwadi, Jalna,
through its Authorised Signatory,
Mr. Govind R. Patel.
2) Govind R. Patel s/o Ramjibhai Patel,
Age 53 years, Occupation - Service,
R/o 901, Sagar Garden, Sambhaji Nagar,
Mulund, Mumbai. .... APPLICANTS
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra,
at the instance of Shri Girish Vishnupant
Nanoti, Seed Inspector & DQCI,
C/o. District Superintending Agriculture
Officer, Amravati District, Amravati. .... NON-APPLICANT
AND
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.347 OF 2015
1) Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd.,
A Company registered under the Companies
Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at
Resham Bhavan, 78, Veer Nariman Road,
Mumbai and Office at Dawalwadi, Jalna,
::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:21:17 :::
2 apl346,347,348.15
through its Authorised Signatory,
Mr. Govind R. Patel.
2) Govind R. Patel s/o Ramjibhai Patel,
Age 53 years, Occupation - Service,
R/o 901, Sagar Garden, Sambhaji Nagar,
Mulund, Mumbai. .... APPLICANTS
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra,
at the instance of Shri Madhukar Govindrao
Sontakke, Seed Inspector & District
Quality Control Inspector,
C/o. District Superintending Agriculture
Officer, Washim, District Washim. .... NON-APPLICANT
AND
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.348 OF 2015
1) Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd.,
A Company registered under the Companies
Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at
Resham Bhavan, 78, Veer Nariman Road,
Mumbai and Office at Dawalwadi, Jalna,
through its Authorised Signatory,
Mr. Govind R. Patel.
2) Govind R. Patel s/o Ramjibhai Patel,
Age 53 years, Occupation - Service,
R/o 901, Sagar Garden, Sambhaji Nagar,
Mulund, Mumbai. .... APPLICANTS
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:21:18 :::
3 apl346,347,348.15
State of Maharashtra,
at the instance of Shri Sanjay Dattatraya
Deshmukh, Seed Inspector & DQCI,
C/o. District Superintending Agriculture
Officer, Yavatmal, District Yavatmal. .... NON-APPLICANT
______________________________________________________________
Shri Sunil Manohar, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A.A. Naik,
Advocate for the applicants,
Shri S.S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 7
APRIL, 2016.
th
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for the applicants and Shri
S.S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-
applicant.
2. These three applications are disposed by the common
judgment as facts are identical and point involved is same.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
4. The District Superintending Agriculture Officers filed
4 apl346,347,348.15
complaints against the applicants contending that the applicant No.1-
Company introduced an advance booking scheme for different varieties
of seeds, advance bookings were taken and substantial amount was
collected from dealers and retailers, however, the advance bookings
were not honoured and the company was not in a position to supply
the products to the consumers and the amount taken from dealers and
retailers was not refunded. The non-applicant/ complainant prayed
that the applicants be prosecuted and punished for offences under
Section 13(1), 19(a) of the Seeds Act, 1966, Section 3 read with
Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and
Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale
and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009 and Sections 406 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code. In all the three cases similar complaints are filed.
The applicants have approached this Court under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the complaints
filed by the non-applicant be quashed
5. According to the applicants, as per Section 4(1)(ii) of the
Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale
and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009, the controller may, by an order
in writing, require any person engaged in the supply, distribution and
5 apl346,347,348.15
sale of cotton seeds, to comply with the directions as may be specified
in the notification as to the variety, quality and quantity of the cotton
seeds to be sold or delivered by him. But, in the instant case, there is
no such order, direction or notification requiring the applicants to
supply specified quantity or variety of cotton seeds and therefore,
Section 13(1) of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply,
Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009 will not be
applicable. The applicants have stated that order or direction has not
been issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or
under Seeds Control Order and therefore, Section 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 will not be attracted. It is the case of the
applicants that the ingredients, necessary to constitute the offences
punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are
not made out in the complaint.
6. The learned Senior Advocate has submitted that identical
complaints were filed under the instructions of Chief Quality Control
Officer, Agriculture Commissionarate, Maharashtra State. According
to the communication dated 13-06-2011 issued by him, the District
Superintending Agriculture Officer was authorised to file the
complaint. It is submitted that Criminal Application No.5256/2013
6 apl346,347,348.15
was filed before the Aurangabad Bench of this Court which is allowed
by the judgment dated 15-09-2014 and identical complaint filed by the
non-applicant through the District Superintending Agriculture Officer,
Jalna against the applicants is dismissed. It is pointed out that
Criminal Application 4402/2013 filed by the applicants at Aurangabad
Bench of this Court is allowed by the judgment dated 03-03-2015 and
the identical complaint filed by the non-applicant through the District
Superintending Agriculture Officer, Beed, is dismissed.
7. It is submitted that Criminal Application (APL)
No.232/2013, Criminal Application (APL) No.130/2013 and Criminal
Application (APL) No.394/2014 filed by the applicants before this
Court are allowed by the judgment dated 16-01-2015 and the
complaints filed by the non-applicant through the District
Superintending Agriculture Officer, Buldhana, through the District
Superintending Agriculture Officer, Wardha and through the District
Superintending Agriculture Officer, Nagpur are dismissed. The learned
Senior Advocate has pointed out that the non-applicant has admitted
in the reply filed before this Court that the complaints which are
dismissed by the judgments passed by this Court, were identical to the
complaints which are the subject of present proceedings.
7 apl346,347,348.15
It is prayed that the present applications be allowed and
the complaints filed by the non-applicant be dismissed.
8. Shri S.S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor has
submitted that the judgments given by this Court in the other cases
dismissing the complaints filed against the applicants cover the
challenges raised by the applicants in so far as the complaint under
Section 13(1), 19(a) of the Seeds Act, 1966 and Section 3 read with
Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and
Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale
and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009 are concerned, but those
judgments will not cover the challenges raised by the applicants to the
validity of complaint under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal
Code. It is submitted that the earlier complaints which are dismissed
by the judgment passed by this Court deal with the illegal acts of the
applicants at other places but in the present case, there are specific
accusations against the applicants that they have collected substantial
amount from the dealers and retailers at the time of advance booking
of orders for supply of seeds and though the orders have not been
honoured and seeds have not been supplied, the applicants have not
refunded the amount. It is submitted that in these facts, the complaint
8 apl346,347,348.15
filed by the non-applicant cannot be dismissed in its entirety and the
applicant will be liable to face the prosecution for offences punishable
under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal code.
9. The learned Senior Advocate for the applicants has
referred to the averments in the complaints to the effect that the
company has not refunded the amount taken at the time of booking
and has supplied in linkage other cotton seeds which were not
demanded by the dealers and farmers. It is submitted that the
complaint is not that the applicants have misappropriated the amount
taken at the time of booking. It is pointed out that the complaints
which are earlier dismissed by this Court were identical and also
levelled accusations of commission of offences punishable under
Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that
this Court found that the offences punishable under Sections 406 and
420 of the Indian Penal Code were not made out and the complaints
are dismissed.
10. It is admitted on behalf of the non-applicants that the
complaints filed against the applicants cannot be continued for the
offences punishable under Sections 13(1), 19(a) of the Seeds Act,
9 apl346,347,348.15
1966, Section 3 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 and for the offence under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale
and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009, in view of the law laid down in
the judgment delivered by this Court in Criminal Application (APL)
No. 4402/2013, Criminal Application (APL) No. 232 of 2013, Criminal
Application (APL) No. 130 of 2013 and Criminal Application (APL)
No. 394 of 2014, referred earlier.
11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted
that the complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and
420 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be quashed as there is prima-facie
material against the applicants.
After going through the judgments given in Criminal
Application No. 4402 of 2013 and other matters referred earlier, I find
that similar allegations were made in the complaints which were
subject matter of Criminal Application No. 4402 of 2013 and other
connected matters. Further I find that the averments made in the
present complaints, prima-facie do not make out the offences
punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
10 apl346,347,348.15
The applicants have stated on oath before this Court that
the applicant No.1-Company has refunded the amount taken from
distributor/customers. The applicants have come out with the specific
case that none of the distributor/customer has made complaint that the
amount is not refunded by the applicants. The learned Additional
Public Prosecutor has not been able to point out any complaint from
any distributor/customer against the applicants making grievance that
the amount taken by the applicants at the time of advance booking has
not been returned and has been illegally misappropriated by the
applicants. The learned Senior Advocate for the applicants has rightly
relied on the judgment given in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and
others vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751
to substantiate the submission that the cognizance of the complaint for
commission of the offence under Section 406 or Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code can be taken only on a complaint at the behest of
the person against whom the offence is committed.
The learned A.P.P. has submitted that the defence of the
applicants cannot be considered at this stage and the Court is required
to examine whether, prima-facie, offence is made out against the
applicant, so that they can be prosecuted.
11 apl346,347,348.15
To counter the submission made on behalf of the non-
applicant, it is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the argument
made on behalf of the non-applicant is misdirected. It is submitted
that the complaint filed by the non-applicant and the documents on
record do not show that any distributor/customer has made any
complaint against the applicants and it is the duty of the Court to
examine this aspect before directing issuance of process for the
offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal
Code. It is submitted that this Court has already quashed the similar
complaints filed by the non-applicants against the applicants and if the
present complaints are not quashed, the applicants will have to suffer
undue hardships which may affect the reputation of the applicants.
I find that the submissions made on behalf of the
applicants have to be considered. In my view, the prosecution of the
applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of
the Indian Penal Code cannot be continued on the basis of the
complaints filed by the non-applicants.
12. Hence, the following order :
i) Criminal Case No.1883/2011 filed by the non-applicant
and pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
12 apl346,347,348.15
Amravati, Regular Criminal Case No.259/2011 filed by the
non-applicant and pending before the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Washim and Regular Criminal Case
No.290/2011 filed by the non-applicant and pending
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yavatmal, are
quashed.
ii)
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
iii) In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
pma/raut
