Bombay High Court
Madhav Prabhakar Nimkar vs The State Of Maharashtra Thro. Pso. ... on 17 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9245-DB
J-apl-1101.22 final.odt 1/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.1101 OF 2022
Madhav Prabhakar Nimkar,
Aged about 38 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. At Post Tiosa, District Amravati. : APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Walgaon Police Station, Amravati.
2. Dadaso V. Pawar (D.O.C.I.)
c/o. D.S.A.O., Amravati,
Agriculture Office, Amravati. : NON-APPLICANTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. S.Z. Qazi, Advocate for Applicant.
Smt. S.S. Dhote, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant No.1.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Nandesh S. Deshpande)
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing
for the parties.
4. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the
J-apl-1101.22 final.odt 2/11
Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing and setting aside
Charge-sheet No.44/2024, dated 24.4.2024 filed by the Police
Station Walgaon, District Amravati for the offences punishable
under Sections 420, 463, 468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Sections 7(a) and 8 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and 8 and 38 of the
Seeds Rules, 1968, 3 and 8 of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983.
The said charge-sheet was filed in pursuance to the F.I.R.
No.167/2022 dated 27th May, 2022, registered with non-applicant
No.1.
5. We have heard Mr. S.Z. Qazi, learned counsel for the
applicant and Smt. S.S. Dhote, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the non-applicant No.1.
6. The First Information Report was lodged with the non-
applicant No.1 for the offences punishable supra with allegation
that the non-applicant No.2, who happens to be Seed Inspector and
Agriculture Officer under the Seeds Act is empowered under
Section 13 of the Seeds (Control) Order 1983. It is alleged in the
F.I.R. that on 26.5.2022 the respondent No.2 on the basis of secret
information conducted a raid along with his team on various
establishments for carrying out inspection as to the compliance of
the Seeds Act and Rules framed thereunder and the Seeds
J-apl-1101.22 final.odt 3/11
(Control) Order. In the raid it was found that M/s. Krushna Seeds
at Survey No.209, Shirajgaon Road Mozari Taluka Tiosa, District
Amravati has committed violation of the said Act, Rules and Order.
It is stated in the F.I.R. that about 30 sacks belonging to Krushna
Seeds were found un-utilized. Therefore, an F.I.R. was lodged
stating that the applicant herein along with other persons have
committed an offence thereby cheating the State Government and
committed offences as mentioned supra. It is further alleged in the
said F.I.R. that in the processing unit, namely, M/s. Sunrise Seeds
the soybean seeds are being processed illegally being packed and
sold.
7. Upon investigation it was found that the soybean seeds
of Agristar Biochemicals Company, Gujarat, 290 bags of DS-228, 25
KG, having the value of Rs.3,900/- per bag and 17 bags of JS-9305
soyabean seeds, having the value of Rs.950/- per bag. It is alleged
that 1055 unused empty bags of DS-228, JS 9305 were found. It is
alleged that 550 bags of soybean seeds, having brand KDS-726
(Fule Sangam) of M/s. Krushna Seeds, Tiosa and 857 unused
empty bags were found. It is alleged that from the above-
mentioned material three samples each were collected in presence
of the witnesses for analysis. It is stated that the accused persons
in order to derive monetary benefit have misled the government
J-apl-1101.22 final.odt 4/11
and cheated the farmers.
8. On the basis of these allegations F.I.R. was lodged and
investigation was carried out. During the pendency of the present
application as the investigation was complete learned Additional
Public Prosecutor sought permission to file the charge-sheet which
was accordingly granted by this Court vide order dated 21.1.2024.
Thereafter, the applicant amended the application and challenged
the charge-sheet.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant, who
stated that applicant is having a processing plant at Tiosa, District
Amravati where the processing of seeds is done. After processing
the seeds are packed in bags of 25 Kgs and 30 Kgs. for the purpose
of sale. It is further stated by the applicant that since packaging
machine of the applicant was not working, he requested one Mr.
Bonde for packaging the processed seeds of the applicant in those
bags. Lot No. NOV-21-13-2723-726 was quality tested and passed
for packaging.
10. It was further stated by the learned counsel for the
applicant that the raids conducted were illegal and no procedure as
contemplated under the Seeds Act and Rules is followed. It is
further stated that even the offences punishable under the Indian
Penal Code are not at all attracted since there is no fraudulent or
J-apl-1101.22 final.odt 5/11
dis-honest inducement of a person to deliver any property. It is
further stated that there is no document shown to have forged to
attract the provisions of Sections 463 and 468 of the Indian Penal
Code. According to the applicant, the seeds which were seized by
the non-applicant No.2 during the raid were already processed and
tested seeds which were only sent by packaging. Even the report
received from the Seeds Testing Laboratory in respect of seized
seeds clearly show that the purity and the germination quality of
the seeds is more than the prescribed unit. It is further stated by
the counsel for the applicant that there is no breach of any
condition of the licence or any of the provisions of the Act, Rules
and the Order and, therefore, the provisions of Essential
Commodities Act are also no attracted. He further states that after
the registration of the offences he filed an application for
anticipatory bail which was granted by this Court on 18.7.2022.
Lastly, he submits that perusal of the entire charge-sheet would
reveal that no offences as stated in it are made out and, therefore,
the said charge-sheet is liable to be quashed.
11. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
strongly opposed the prayer made in the application and stated that
the offences are squarely attracted. He submits that the seeds were
found in premises of Sunrise Seeds, Taluka Bhatkuli, District
J-apl-1101.22 final.odt 6/11
Amravati where it was not permitted to sell, store process as it was
other place than specified in the licence. Moreover, the applicant
has not at all informed to licensing authority about the agreement
entered into with the proprietor of Sunrise Seeds for conducting,
processing at the said place. It is further stated that the applicant is
thus responsible for contravention of the Act, Rules and Order.
12. In rebuttal, counsel for the applicant has taken us
through the rejoinder filed by him on 20.2.2023 in which the
competent authority under the Seeds Act has found that there is no
breach of condition of the licence issued to the applicant.
13. In the backdrop of these facts we have perused the
material on record. Before adverting to the factual aspects of the
matter it would be necessary to highlight some provisions of the
Seeds Act. The Seeds Act was brought into being for regulating the
quality of certain seeds for selling and for matters connected
therewith. Section 7 provides for regulation of sale of seeds of
notified kinds or varieties and states that no person shall, himself or
by any other person on his behalf, carry on the business of selling,
keeping for sale, otherwise to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying
any seed of any notified kind or variety, unless- (a) such seed is
identifiable as to its kind or variety; Section 8 speaks of
certification agency - The State Government or the Central
J-apl-1101.22 final.odt 7/11
Government, may by notification establish certification agency for
the State to carry out the functions entrusted to the certification
agency by or under this Act. Thereafter, Section 15 provides for
detail procedure to be followed by Seed Inspector - whenever he
intends to take sample of any seed of any notified kind or variety
for analysis, which provides for giving notice in writing, then and
there, of such intention to the person from whom he intends to
take sample and further provides for taking three representative
samples in the prescribed manner and mark and seal or fasten up
each sample in such manner as its nature permits. Furthermore,
sub-Section (2) of Section 15 provides that when samples of any
seed of any notified kind or variety are taken under sub-section (1),
the Seed Inspector shall deliver one sample to the person from
whom it has been taken. Section 19 of the Act provides for penalty
and states that if any person contravenes any provision of this Act
or any Rule made thereunder shall be punishable as provided in the
said Section.
14. The Seed Rules are framed in exercise of the powers
conferred by Section 25 of the Seeds Act and provide for various
procedural aspects. Rule 23 provides for duties of a Seed Inspector
which provides that the Seed Inspector would frequently inspect all
places for growing, storage or sale of any seed of any notified kind
J-apl-1101.22 final.odt 8/11
and satisfy himself that the conditions of the certificates are being
observed.
15. The Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 has been made by the
Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Clause (3)
speaks of a duty of a delier to obtain licence. Clause (15) provides
for suspension/cancellation of licence and clause (18) speaks about
the duty of maintaining of records and submission of returns by the
dealer.
16. In the backdrop of these statutory provisions if the
charge-sheet under challenge is perused the allegation is that
certain empty bags belonging to the applicant proprietary concern
were found in a premises where they were not supposed to be
found. It is an admitted fact on record that the applicant is having
a licence to carry on business of dealer in seeds issued under
clause (5) of the Seeds (Control) Order. It can also be seen from
the certificate of test and analysis by the seed analyst that the seeds
of soyabean variety KDS-727 bearing Lot No.NOV-21-13-2723-726
is passed by the said Authority that is it is fit for germination. It
can further be seen that the applicant has purchased the source
seeds from different sources as the copy of the receipt/release order
is placed on record which was valid till 8.1.2022. It can further be
J-apl-1101.22 final.odt 9/11
seen that the purchase seeds are required to be distributed to be
growers/farmers of the seeds which was accordingly done by the
applicant as can be seen from the chart produced at Annexure-IV.
Furthermore, after harvest of the crop the seeds are purchased from
the growers/farmers by the applicant and then they were processed
and packed in the bags for sale. Accordingly, the applicant has
uploaded the list of said farmers on the website of the department
which is found at Annexure-V. Thereafter, the manufacturer
processed the seeds for germination and then it is sent to the
laboratory for the purpose of testing and as per the report the seeds
which are within the prescribed quality are packed in the bags and
are sold to the farmers. This can be seen from the Annexure-VI
filed with the application. As stated supra, the lot sent by the
non-applicant No.2 has passed the quality control test. All these
documents are not disputed by the non-applicants.
17. We have perused the entire material as stated above
along with various documents placed by the non-applicant No.1
with the charge-sheet and the statements. After perusal of these
documents it can be seen that the fact of applicant having a valid
licence, the sample sent to the testing laboratory passing the quality
control test are not disputed. The only primary contention raised
by the non-applicant No.1 seems to be that there is a breach of
J-apl-1101.22 final.odt 10/11
conditions of licnece. However, as stated above, there is a
categorical finding by the licensing authority and the Director of
Agriculture that there is no such breach. In view of these facts, we
are of the considered view that no offence as stated under the
Seeds Act, the Rules framed thereunder and the Seeds (Control)
Order are attracted even if the averments in the F.I.R. and the
material in the charge-sheet are taken on their face value. As far as
offences under the Indian Penal Code are concerned, there is
neither any dishonest intention or inducement to deceive/cheat the
farmers /Government for delivery of any property. Furthermore
even offences under the essential commodities Act are not made
out as therir is no breach of any condition of license.
18. The situation would squarely fall within the laid down
parameters of the judgment of the State of Haryana and others Vs.
Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 more
particularly clause (1) and (3) of paragraph 102 read as under :
(1) Where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if
they aretaken at their face value and accepted
in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offenceor make out a case against the
accused.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out acase against the accused.
J-apl-1101.22 final.odt 11/11
19. The continuation of the proceedings against the
applicant and to forcing him to face a criminal trial would be thus
an abuse of process of the Court. Hence, we proceed to pass
following order :
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The Charge-sheet No.44/2024, dated 24.4.2024
filed by the Police Station Walgaon, District Amravati for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 463, 468 read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 Sections 7(a) and 8 of the Seeds Act, 1966
and 8 and 38 of the Seeds Rules, 1968, 3 and 8 of the Seeds
(Control) Order, 1983 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The application is disposed of.
(Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/09/2025 10:17:54
