Bombay High Court
Nandkishor Laxminarayan ... vs State Of Maha & Ors on 29 August, 2016
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 CRI APPLN NO.1903.2003.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1903 OF 2003
...
1. Nandkishor S/o Laxminarayan Kagliwal,
Age: 56 years, Occu: Business,
R/o: Akash Farm, Nath Road, Aurangabad.
2. Satish S/o Laxminarayan Kagliwal,
Age: 45 years, Occu: Business,
R/o. Adalat Road, Auranabad.
3.
Kumar s/o Govindrao Anwikar,
Age: 65 years, Occu: Business,
R/o. Anwi, Taluka Sillod,
District: Auranagbad.
4. Radheshyam S/o Shivram Attal
Age: 50 years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o Georai, Tq. Georai,
Dist. Beed.
5. Laxman S/o Ganpati Ayyar,
Age: 54 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Aurangabad.
Gut No. 64/2, Nath Seeds, Nath House,
Paithan Road, Auranagabad
...PETITIONERS...
(Accused No.1, 2, 4, 6 & 7)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
(Copy to be served on the Public
Prosecutor, High Court Bench
at Aurangabad)
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Buldhana.
::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2016 00:39:15 :::
2 CRI APPLN NO.1903.2003.odt
3. The Police Station Officer,
Police Station Kranti Chowk,
Aurangabad,
4. Devidas S/o Pralhad Kulkarni,
Agricultural Development Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana. (Deleted)
..RESPONDENTS..
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr D V Soman
APP for Respondents : Miss R P Gour
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.
Dated: August 29, 2016
ig ...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Being aggrieved by the order passed below Exh.57
in RCC No.165/1997 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Aurangabad, the original accused nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7
preferred this criminal application.
2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present application,
are as under :-
The petitioners are the Directors of the Company
named and styled as 'Nath Seeds Limited' engaged in
the Productions and Marketing of Cotton Seeds. The
Agricultural officer of the Zilla Parishad, Buldhana had
lodged complaint against the petitioners and many other
seeds companies on the ground that the cotton seed
3 CRI APPLN NO.1903.2003.odt
CAHH-468 is not giving proper yield. The Agricultural
Officer has lodged the complaint at Police Station Kranti
Chowk and on the basis of his complaint Crime no.123
of 1994 came to be registered at Police Station Kranti
Chowk, Aurangabad. After due investigation, charge
sheet came to be submitted before the Court and
accordingly RCC No.179/1997 is registered. The
petitioners-original accused moved an application for
discharge and the same was rejected mainly on the
ground that the petitioners and their counsel was
absent when the matter was called out for hearing.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that, as per the provisions of Rule 23A of the Seeds
(Control) Rules, 1968, the Seed Inspector is empowered
to investigate in such matter, if, the complaint is lodged
with him that failure of the crop is due to defective
quality of seeds of any kind or variety supplied to him,
the Seed Inspector shall take in his possession the
marks of labels, the seed containers and a sample of
unused seeds to the extent possible from the
complainant for establishing the source of supply of
4 CRI APPLN NO.1903.2003.odt
seeds and shall investigate the causes of the failure of
his crop by sending samples of the lot to the Seed
Analyst for detailed analysis at the State Seed Testing
Laboratory. Learned counsel submits that, there is no
question of prosecution by filing charge sheet after
registration of the Crime in the police station either
under the provisions of the Seeds Act or under the
provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel submits that, the breeder who
has produced said seeds is Punjab Krushi Vidyapith
and in that course of the matter, the provisions of
section 420 of Indian Penal Code cannot be attracted
against the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that
this Court on earlier occasion wherein such prosecution
initiated at the behest of the Seed Inspector against the
manufacturer quashed and set aside said prosecution.
Learned counsel for the applicant placed his reliance on
four cases of this Court where in the prosecution
against manufacturer came to be quashed in identical
situation.
i. Korra Srinivas Rao Vs. The State reported in 2002
(4) ALL M.R. 368.
5 CRI APPLN NO.1903.2003.odt
ii. Criminal Application No.1839/2001 Ajit Muley and
others Vs. The State.
iii. Criminal Application No.3528/2004 Padmakar
Muley and others Vs. The State.
iv. Criminal W P No.19/2002 Padmakar Muley and
others Vs. The State.
5. I have also heard the learned APP for the State.
6.
In the instant case, Agriculture Officer of Zilla
Parishad has directly lodged the complaint in police
Station Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad and on the basis of
his complaint Crime No.123/1994 came to be registered.
In view of the provisions of Rule 23A, Sub Rule 2 of the
Seeds Rules, 1968, Seed Inspector can initiate a
proceeding in respect of the complaint of the Farmers
regarding failure of crop due to defective quality of seeds
after detail investigation by himself. The police
authorities cannot investigate such case. Assuming
that charge under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code
is levelled against the petitioners and, therefore, the
police can investigate into the matter and after
due investigation submit charge sheet even then, it
6 CRI APPLN NO.1903.2003.odt
appears from the allegations made in the complaint and
on careful perusal of the charge sheet, ingredients of
section 420 of Indian Penal Code hardly attracts in the
present case. It is not disputed that, the petitioner who
are the Directors of the Manufacturer Company,
received said seeds from the breeder Punjab Krushi
Vidyapeeth. It was thereafter processed by the
Government Agency and certified by the District Seed
Certification Agency about the quality of the breeding
seeds, its performance. In the aforesaid cases relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this
Court has held that, prosecution against the
manufacturer is liable to be quashed and set aside.
7. So, in view of the above, even though, the Chief
Judicial Magistrate has not passed impugned order on
merits, there is no point in sending this matter back for
re-consideration. Hence, following order.
O R D E R
I. Criminal Application is hereby allowed
in terms of prayer clauses "C" and "D"
as against present petitioners.
7 CRI APPLN NO.1903.2003.odt
II. Criminal Application is accordingly
disposed of. Rule is made absolute in
above terms.
sd/-
( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
.....
aaa/-
