Bombay High Court
Rishi Kumar And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 9 June, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Abhay S. Waghwase
Cri.Appln.1995 of 2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1995 OF 2022
1. Rishi Kumar,
Age-Adult,
Director of Patanjali Organic Research
Institute Pvt. Ltd.,
Residing at H.No.231, Sector-1B,
Mandi, Gobindgarh, Fatehgarh
Sahib- 147301, Punjab.
2. Acharya Balkrishna
Age - Adult
Former Director of Patanjali Organic
Research Institute Pvt. Ltd.
Residing at 41 KH, Dadubagh, Kankhal,
Haridwar - 249408, Uttarkhand.
3. Akhilesh Shivpuri
Age - Adult,
Director of Patanjali Organic Research
Institute Pvt. Ltd.,
Residing at Shamshan Ghat Road,
Mohalla Holy Chowk, Kankhal,
Haridwar - 249408, Uttarkhand.
4. Ganesh Ravindra Panchpatil
Aged - Adult,
Authorized Representative of Patanjali
Organic Research Institute Pvt. Ltd.,
Residing at Plot No. 34, Gut No.90/1,
Priyadarshani Housing Society,
Suryadeep Nagar, Satara Parisar,
Aurangabad - 43100, Maharashtra. ... Applicants
(Ori. Accused)
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Senior Inspector of Police,
Police Station-Mantha, District- Jalna,
Maharashtra.
::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 04:51:16 :::
Cri.Appln.1995 of 2022
-2-
2. Agriculture Officer and Seeds Inspector,
Having Office at Panchayat Samiti,
Mantha, District - Jalna, Maharashtra ... Respondents.
...
Mr. Rakesh D. Kumar, Advocate h/f Mr. Ujwal S. Patil, Advocate for
the Applicants.
Mr. S. D. Ghayal, APP for Respondents-State.
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 28 APRIL 2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 09 JUNE 2023
JUDGMENT (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) :
1. In the above captioned proceedings, powers under
section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are sought to be
exercised by the applicants, who are Directors/representatives of a
private limited company, thereby praying to quash the FIR No. 195 of
2020 registered at Mantha police station along with consequential
charge-sheet, for commission of offence under sections 420 read with
section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with section 3(2)(A) and
section 3(2)(F) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, "E.C.
Act, 1955") and Section 21 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and Clauses 3(1)
and 8(A) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983.
Cri.Appln.1995 of 2022
Brief background giving rise to registration of offence
2. Respondent no.2, an authorized officer of respondent
no.1, on 04.06.2020, conducted raid on the shop, namely M/s.
Sadguru Samarth Krishi Seva Kendra situated at Talani, Taluka
Mantha, District Jalna, dealing in sale of various seeds. Respondent
no.2, who is the complainant, has alleged that during the said raid,
shop owner was found to be indulging in activity of sale of Soyabeen
seeds, which were manufactured by applicant's company without
requisite licence from the State of Maharashtra. So he set law into
motion for above offences.
Precisely, said FIR and charge-sheet emanating from the
same are now sought to be quashed and set aside.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS
On behalf of Applicants :-
3. After giving brief introduction of applicant's private
company, learned counsel for applicant submitted that, they are
specialized in biological products for agriculture application and that
company's products are renowned for its high quality and efficiency.
It is pointed out that applicant has its own Storage and Sales facility
Cri.Appln.1995 of 2022
in the State of Uttarakhand and that company had obtained valid
State licence(s) as required under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983,
i.e. for sale/export/import and storage of seeds from licencing
authority (Chief Agricultural Officer, Haridwar, Uttarakhand) on
02.01.2019. He further strenuously submitted that applicants do not
have any Storage point or Sales outlet in the State of Maharashtra.
According to him, their efforts in the State of Maharashtra are
primarily focused in mere marketing and distribution of seeds
through various dealers and distributors who possess valid licence(s)
issued by the Government of Maharashtra. That, accordingly
applicants sold its seeds to one distributor namely M/s. Sadguru
Samarth Krishi Seva Kendra, Mantha, Jalna who is duly authorized by
the State by virtue of valid licence to conduct sale of seeds in the
State of Maharashtra.
4. It is further emphasized that for carrying out seeds
business in any State, a seeds dealer is merely required to obtain the
licence from State Licencing Authority under the Seeds (Control)
Order, 1983 in terms of clause (3). Learned counsel stressed that no
separate licence is required, if person carrying on business of seeds
does not have any Storage point or Sales outlet in a particular State.
Cri.Appln.1995 of 2022
5. He would urge that, when it was realized by the Central
Government that, some States are insisting on Seed manufacturing
companies to obtain seed dealer's licence, sale permission, State
registration for selling, storing, exporting and importing of seeds in
their States, irrespective of whether they are selling the seeds directly
through their sales outlets or selling the seeds through their dealer,
distributors and though they had valid seed dealer's licence issued by
the concerned State Authorities, the Ministry of Agriculture and
Farmer of Welfare, Government of India stepped in to put a quietus to
the unnecessary controversy and issued Office Memorandum dated
29.04.2016 clarifying that, no separate State licence is required for
carrying out seeds business in a particular state, if the company
concerned does not have its Storage point or Sales outlet in the State
and is selling the seeds through the dealer or the distributor having a
valid licence issued by that State.
6. Learned counsel would point out that, in the backdrop of
above Office Memorandum at the instance of Central Government,
even several State Governments have acted in pursuance to it and
have further issued necessary instructions to the District Agriculture
Officers, to not to insist for separate State licence in cases where the
Cri.Appln.1995 of 2022
company concerned does not have Storage and Sale facility. Learned
counsel named the State of Telangana to be complying with the Office
Memorandum issued by the Central Government. He invited our
attention to both, Office Memorandum dated 29.04.2016 and
guidelines issued by Government of Telangana.
7. In the last leg of his contention, learned counsel would
submit that in view of above existing position, insistence of licence by
respondent no.2 with M/s. Sadguru Samarth Krishi Seva Kendra is
unwarranted as it is based on erroneous belief, assertion and
misinterpretation of the provisions of law. Therefore according to the
learned counsel, action initiated by respondent no.2 being unlawful,
is required to be interfered with by this court by invoking powers
under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing both the FIR as well as the
charge-sheet. He sought reliance on the orders passed by High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State
of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 18385 of 2016, Miscellaneous
Criminal Case No.28166 of 2020 passed by High Court of Madhya
Pradesh (Indore Bench), Misc. Criminal Case No.6742 of 2016 passed
by High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench) and order passed
by Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 18237 of 2017.
Cri.Appln.1995 of 2022
On behalf of State :-
8. Strongly opposing the relief sought, learned APP invited
our attention to the FIR dated 04.06.2020 and pointed out that
authorized officer of the State - respondent no.2 conducted raid at
the shop namely, M/s. Sadguru Samarth Krishi Seva Kendra. During
surprise check, said shop owner was found to be selling seeds
marketed by present applicant's private limited company. That, it was
realized that said company being based in Uttarakhand State and
carrying out sales activities in the State of Maharashtra, was required
to possess requisite licence from State of Maharashtra. On inquiry, it
was revealed that said shop owner did not possess said licence for
Storage and Sales of the Soyabeen seeds. Said sale activity was in
contravention of the provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966 and the Seeds
(Control) Order, 1983. Appropriate action was therefore initiated
and complaint was lodged. According to learned APP, thorough
investigation revealed violation of Indian Penal Code coupled with
provisions of Seeds Act, Essential Commodities Act and Seeds
(Control) Order, 1983 and therefore, action was rightly initiated
against defaulters including present applicants. That, the charge-
sheet has already been filed and it is his submission that there is
strong and incriminating material regarding involvement of several
entities including applicants in the commission of the above offence
Cri.Appln.1995 of 2022
and violation of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983. While concluding it is
submitted that, as there is sufficient material for trial, he prays for
dismissal of the application.
9. Heard both sides at length.
It is emerging that respondent no.2 who undisputedly is
an authorized officer of agriculture department conducted raid on a
shop, namely M/s. Sadguru Samarth Krishi Seva Kendra, during
which, it was revealed that seeds manufactured by Salasar Agro,
Madhya Pradesh were marketed by M/s. Patanjali Bio-research
Institute based at Haridwar, Uttarakhand i.e. company of present
applicants. During inquiry, respondent no.2 claims to have realized
that shop owner selling the Soyabeen seeds was not possessing
licence issued by State of Maharashtra, and therefore, he lodged FIR
alleging commission of above offences and breach of provisions of
E.C. Act, Seeds Act and Seeds (Control) Order.
10. What can be culled out from the submissions and
arguments advanced before us by learned counsel for applicants is
that they do not have a Storage point or Sales outlet in the State of
Maharashtra and as such there is no further need or requirement to
obtain separate licence as insisted by respondent no.2.
Cri.Appln.1995 of 2022
To buttress such contention of no necessity of separate
licence, he invited our attention to the Office Memorandum issued by
the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare dated 29.04.2016 and
he also seeks reliance on judgments passed by Andhra Pradesh High
Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court.
11. Before dwelling on the above controversy and to
appreciate the arguments put-forth by each of the side, it would be
desirable to deal with relevant provisions of the Seeds Act and Seeds
(Control) Order. The preamble of the Seeds Act explicitly provides
that it is an act to provide for Regulating the quality of certain seeds
for sale and matters connected therewith regarding its sale.
The Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 issued by the Central
Government, of which there is no dispute, is an exercise of powers
under section 3 of E.C. Act, 1955. Clause (3) of said Order is as
under :-
Clause -3 Dealer to obtain licence
"(1) No person shall carry on the business of selling,
exporting or importing Seeds at any place except under and
in accordance with the terms and conditions of licence
granted to him under this order.
Cri.Appln.1995 of 2022
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub Clause
(1), the State Government may, by notification in Official
Gazette, exempt from the provisions of that Sub Clause such
class of dealers in such areas and subject to such conditions
as may be specified in the notification."
12. In our considered opinion, clause 1 explicitly mandates
every dealer to obtain licence for sale in a particular State. This
condition is relaxed by virtue of clause (2) only at the will and wish of
State Government and that too upon issuance of specific notification.
Though an Office Memorandum issued by the Central Government is
caught hold of by the applicants in support of their contention of no
necessity of separate licence, it is pertinent to note that Government
of Maharashtra does not seem to have acknowledged the said Office
Memorandum and has not thereby issued separate guidelines or
directions as is shown to be done by the Government of Telangana.
Even there is no notification issued by authorities in the State of
Maharashtra thereby exempting applicant's company from condition
of seeking licence. Therefore, assertions of applicants regarding no
requirement of separate licence as they do not have any Storage
points or Sales outlet, is without strong foundation. On the contrary
from clause (3) discussed and reproduced above, it is explicit that, no
person can carry on business of selling, exporting or importing seeds
Cri.Appln.1995 of 2022
at any place except under and in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the licence granted to him in the Form 'B' under clause
(5) of the said Order.
13. Consequently, activity of sale of Soyabeen seeds by
applicant's company being in absence of authorization and valid
licence, is prima facie in violation of above provisions. Resultantly,
the action at the end of respondent no.2 cannot be said to be bad in
law. Investigation has been carried out revealing breach and violation
of Seeds Act and Order along with commission of offence under IPC
and as such prosecution has been launched.
14. FIR and consequently charge-sheet is sought to be
quashed. However, we are mindful of the settled legal preposition
that powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. are to be exercised rarely
and sparingly. In catena of judgments the Hon'ble Apex Court has
time and again reiterated that inherent powers under section 482 of
Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court; firstly, to give effect to an
order under Cr.P.C., secondly, to prevent abuse of process of court
and thirdly, to secure ends of justice.
As none of the above contingencies are existing in the
Cri.Appln.1995 of 2022
case in hand, we refrain from exercising the powers under section 482
of Cr.P.C. and so proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
The criminal application is dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
Tandale
