[Cites 31, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Suraj S/O Arunrao Wankhede And Another vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Wadki Tah. ... on 16 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:2655-DB
1/15 Judg.APL.418.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 418 OF 2020
1. Suraj s/o Arunrao Wankhede (Dead)
Aged about : 34 Years; Occu : Business;
R/o Sundarban, Warora, Tahsil Warora,
District Chandrapur.
[Applicant No.1 is deleted as per Court's
order dtd.9.1.2021 ]
2. Samir s/o Arunrao Wankhede
Aged about : 32 Years; Occu : Business; R/o
Sundarban, Warora, Tahsil Warora, District
Chandrapur. ... APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through the Police Station Officer, Police
Station, Wadki, Tahsil Ralegaon, District
Yavatmal.
2. Sanjay Janrao Pathak
Aged about : 57 Years; Occu : Agricultural
Officer, Ralegaon Panchayat Samiti,
Ralegaon, Tahsil Ralegaon, District
Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS
Mr. A. A. Dhawas, Advocate for Applicants.
Ms. D. I. Charlewar, APP for Respondent No.1/State.
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : FEBRUARY 02, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : FEBRUARY 16, 2026.
2/15 Judg.APL.418.2020.odt
JUDGMENT
. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of the learned Counsel for both sides.
2. By the present Application, the Applicants are seeking quashment
of Regular Criminal Case No. 83/2019 pending on the file of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Ralegaon, District Yavatmal and Chargesheet No.
216/2019 dated 5/10/2019 arising out of Crime No. 161/2018 registered with
Police Station, Wadki, Tahsil Ralegaon, District Yavatmal for the offence
punishable under Sections 420, 463, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code
read with Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Sections 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Seeds Act, 1968 and Rule 7 of the Seeds Rules, 1976,
Sections 2(8) and 12 of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply,
Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009, Sections 3, 9(c),
10(ch) of Cotton Seeds Rule, 2010 and Sections 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 of Essential
Commodities Act, 1955.
3. It is the submission of the Applicants that there is no seizure of
any contraband articles from their custody. The only allegation against them is
that as per the statement of co-accused that fertilisers were supplied by the
3/15 Judg.APL.418.2020.odt
Applicants, Chargesheet came to be filed against them in the matter. However,
considering the allegations, which are levelled against them, do not make out
any offence as alleged against them, hence, they sought indulgence of this
Court in the matter.
4. It is submitted by the Applicants that both the Applicants were
Proprietors of Suraj Agro Agency. During the pendency of the present
Application, Applicant No.1 is expired and now only the Applicant No.2 is
surviving accused in the present Application.
5. The prosecution case in brief is that, Respondent No.2 is working
as Taluka Agricultural Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Ralegaon, District Yavatmal.
On receipt of information from the Police Station, Wadki, Tahsil Ralegaon,
District Yavatmal that Accused No.1 Pramod Bhaurao Dahule R/o Khairi, Tahsil
Ralegaon, District Yavatmal has illegally stocked the prohibited cotton seeds
and other material, Respondent No.2 along with other staff members raided
the house of the Accused No.1 - Pramod Dahule. During search of the house,
he seized six plastic bags containing prohibited cotton seeds of different
brands, as such, total 292 bags of cotton seeds were seized, which were found
to be prohibited in the State of Maharashtra.
4/15 Judg.APL.418.2020.odt
6. It is further alleged that upon enquiry from the Accused
No.1 Pramod, it is revealed that he had purchased those prohibited cotton
seeds bags from the shop of present Applicant. Accordingly, the Respondent
No.2 had raided the shop of the present Applicant namely, M/s Suraj Agro
Agency on 22/5/2018. But no prohibited cotton seeds were seized from the
Applicant. However, on the basis of statement of Accused No.1 that Applicant
has made available the cotton seeds from M/s Suraj Agro Agency, Applicant is
chargesheeted in the matter.
7. The learned Counsel for Applicant submitted that the offence
under Sections 420, 463, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code are not made
out against them. It is submitted that to attract Section 420 of Indian Penal
Code, there should be specific allegations to constitute the offence of cheating
or it should demonstrate that a person has been induced either fraudulently or
dishonestly to deliver any property to any person or consent of any person
shall retain in property. However, in the present case, no allegation is made
against the present Applicant that he had dishonestly or by deceiving to
anyone delivered any property to the co-accused or make, alter or destroy or
anything signed or sealed which is capable of being converted into the
valuable security. Hence, according to the learned Counsel for Applicant in
5/15 Judg.APL.418.2020.odt
absence of any of the ingredients of Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code no
offence is attracted in the matter.
8. In respect of Sections 463, 465 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, it is
pointed out by the learned Counsel for Applicant that to attract these offences
of forgery, there should be specific mention of preparing false document or
part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to
any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with
property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to
commit fraud or that fraud may be committed by him. But in the entire
chargesheet there are no such allegations against the Applicant in the matter.
9. The Applicant, to substantiate his submission, has relied upon the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Deepak Gaba
and Others V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2023) 3 Supreme Court
Cases 423, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered these
provisions and its applicability by holding that assertions made in the
complaint failed to establish the conditions set out under Sections 420 and 471
of IPC, the offence cannot be attracted in the matter. In this regard, the
observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos. 18 and 21
to 24, which are relevant, reproduced as under :
6/15 Judg.APL.418.2020.odt
"18. In order to apply Section 420 IPC, namely, cheating and
dishonestly inducing delivery of property, the ingredients of Section
415 IPC have to be satisfied. To constitute an offence of cheating under
Section 415 IPC, a person should be induced, either fraudulently or
dishonestly, to deliver any property to any person, or consent that any
person shall retain any property. The second class of acts set forth in
the section is the intentional inducement of doing or omitting to do
anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do, if she
were not so deceived. Thus, the sine qua non of Section 415 IPC is
"fraudulence", "dishonesty", or "intentional inducement", and the
absence of these elements would debase the offence of cheating.
21. Section 471 IPC is also not attracted. This Section is applicable
when a person fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any
document or electronic record. This Court in Mohd. Ibrahim, has
elucidated that the condition precedent of an offence under Section
471 IPC is forgery by making a false document or false electronic
record or part thereof. Further, to constitute the offence under Section
471 IPC, it has to be proven that the document was "forged" in terms
of Section 470, and "false" in terms of Section 464 IPC.
22. Section 470 lays down that a document is "forged" if there is :
(i) fraudulent or dishonest use of a document as genuine; and
(ii) knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of the person using
the document that it is a forged one.
Section 470 defines a "forged document" as a false document made by
forgery.
23. As per Section 464 IPC, a person is said to have made a "false
document" :
(i) if he has made or executed a document claiming to be someone else
or authorised by someone else;
(ii) if he has altered or tampered a document; or
(iii) if he has obtained a document by practising deception, or from a
person not in control of his senses.
7/15 Judg.APL.418.2020.odt
24. Unless the document is false and forged in terms of Sections 464
and 470 IPC respectively, the requirement of Section 471 IPC would
not be met."
10. In respect of offence under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 of the
Seeds Act, 1968 and Rule 3 of the Seeds Control Order 1983, the Applicant has
relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Korra Srinivas Rao
Krishnamurthy & Another V/s State of Maharashtra & Others, 2002 (Supp.2)
Bom.C.R. 89, wherein in paragraph No.17 this Court has observed as under :
"17. The contention of the learned Advocate for the respondents is
that the expression "launch proceedings" would include lodging of
complaint either to the Court or to the Police Authorities. It is further
contended that the expression "supplier" would include manufacturer,
seller or any other dealer in the seeds. As far as the contention
regarding the scope of the expression "supplier" is concerned, there
cannot be any doubt that "supplier" would include all those persons
dealing with the supply of seeds to the farmers. Whether supplier
would also include manufacture or not would certainly depend upon
the facts of each case. Unless it is shown that the manufacturer is also
either directly or indirectly concerned with the supply of seeds to the
farmers, he cannot be considered as "supplier" merely because he is
manufacturer. In case if seeds are supplied by the manufacturer to a
particular farmer or a person for the utilization thereof by such farmer
or person in a particular land and the said persons instead of utilizing
the said seeds, supplies the said seeds to a third person, then the
manufacturer cannot be called as a supplier to the third person.
However, it will be a matter of evidence, and will depend upon the
facts of each case. But, the contention that the expression "launch
proceedings" would include lodging of complaint with the police as
8/15 Judg.APL.418.2020.odt
well as Court is totally devoid of substance and the same runs counter
to the provisions of the sub-rule (2). Sub-rule (2) of Rule 23-A
specifically provides that the investigation is to be carried out by the
Seed Inspector himself in respect of the complaints of the farmers
regarding failure of crop due to defective quality of seeds. Sub-rule (2)
itself shows that the Seed Inspector can launch the proceedings only
after he comes to the conclusion that the failure of crop is due to
quality of seeds, supplied to the farmers being less than the minimum
standard notified by the Government. In other words, the provisions
contained in Rule 23-A speak of detail investigation by the Seed
Inspector by himself on the complaint of farmer due to defective
quality of the seeds and the conclusion to be arrived at in that regard
by the Seed Inspector himself. Being so, there can be no scope for the
police authorities for investigation in such cases. That apart, section
155(2) of Criminal Procedure Code specifically provides that the Police
Authorities cannot investigate in the matter when the same is non-
cognizable. Once it is clear that the punishment imposable for the
offence under the Seeds Act is, less than three years imprisonment,
therefore, the same is non-cognizable offence, it cannot be, at the same
time, said that merely taking shelter of Rule 23-A(2), the police
authorities will get powers to investigate into the matter. The specific
provisions in the Code deprives the police authorities to investigate in
the matters relating to non-cognizable offences. Being so, the
submission on the point of scope of expression "launching proceedings"
in sub-rule (2) of Rule 23-A of the Seeds Rule, of the learned Advocate
for the Seed Inspector, are absolutely devoid of substance. Besides, as
rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners, sub-rule
(2) specifically speaks about launching of proceedings in relation to the
contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder
and not relating to the offence which can be said to be punishable
under the Indian Penal Code."
11. On the basis of this Judgment it is the submission of the present
9/15 Judg.APL.418.2020.odt
Applicant that offences under the provisions of Seeds Act, 1968 and Seeds
Control Order, 1983 Police Authorities cannot investigate in the matter.
According to the Applicant, offences under the Seeds Act and the Seeds
Control Order, 1983 provides the punishment less than three years
imprisonment, and therefore, the same are non-cognizable offences. Hence,
they cannot be investigated by the police authorities, in view of Section 155(2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
12. According to the Applicant, the mechanism has been provided
under Rule 23-A of the Seeds Rule, 1968 to initiate complaint but in the
present matter no such complaint has been lodged against the present
Applicants, and therefore, in absence of any investigation at the instance of
Seed Inspector as contemplated under the Seeds Act and Rules framed
thereunder, no action can be initiated against the present Applicants.
13. In respect of the offence under Section 15 of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, from the perusal of the complaint as well as
chargesheet, there is absolutely no allegation that Applicants have done
anything which is resulted into the discharge or emission of any environmental
pollution in cases of standard prescribed Section 15 of the Environment
Protection Act, which provides penalty for contravention of the provisions of
10/15 Judg.APL.418.2020.odt
the said Act. However, the allegations made in the complaint as well as
material collected during investigation no where disclosed the basic
ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Environment
Protection Act. Hence, the prosecution under the provisions of Environment
Protection Act cannot be continued against the Applicant in the matter.
14. In respect of Sections 2 (8) and 12 of the Maharashtra Cotton
Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and fixation of Sale Price) Act,
2009, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for Applicant that
punishment under Section 12 is provided when the person found in his
possession for sale, any cotton seeds which are misbranded or any act of like
nature. In the present case, admittedly no cotton seeds were seized from the
present Applicant, which are alleged to be misbranded. The same were seized
from the Accused No.1, who is not a party to the present proceeding. Hence,
according to the Applicant, if there is no seizure nor he found in possession for
sale any cotton seeds which are misbranded, this offence is not attracted in the
matter.
15. In respect of Sections 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 of the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955, the submission of the learned Counsel for Applicant is that, these
provisions comes into operation only when any order is made under Section 3
11/15 Judg.APL.418.2020.odt
of the Essential Commodities Act and same found to be contravened by the
Applicant in the matter. However, in the present matter, there is no specific
allegation on the part of Respondent No.2 that any notification was issued
under Section 3 of declaring the cotton seeds which are necessary to be in
control by the Central Government for maintaining or increasing supply or for
securing equitable distribution and availability of fair prices. Hence, according
to the Applicant it is essential for bringing the offence under Section 7 which
must be demonstrated that some order has been made under Section 3 and
that order has been controverted. However, there are no such allegations
against the present Applicant in the matter, and therefore, this offence also
cannot be registered against him.
16. The learned Counsel for Applicant has made a submission that in
view of the Judgment of Korra Srinivas Rao Krishnamurthy (supra) the Police
Authorities cannot initiate criminal proceeding against him and only remedy is
available to them to file the proceeding under Rule 23-A of the Seed Rules,
1968. Hence, according to the learned Counsel, the entire proceedings which
are initiated against the Applicant are vitiated for the aforesaid reasons.
17. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned APP that there is no
specific bar to investigate into the offences which are registered under the
12/15 Judg.APL.418.2020.odt
provisions of Indian Penal Code. The learned APP has pointed out from
paragraph No.17 of the Judgment in the case of Korra Srinivas Rao
Krishnamurthy (supra) which is reproduced hereinabove, wherein this Court
has stated that the Police Authorities are only restricted to investigate into the
offence which are non-cognizable under Section 155(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, but the Police Authorities can investigate the offence
under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the investigation is
done in the matter and some material has been collected against the Applicant
as he found while supplying the contraband cotton seeds to the Accused No.1.
Hence, according to the learned APP, it is not a fit case to quash and set aside
the entire chargesheet against the present Applicant.
18. In the light of rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for
Applicant, the learned APP and the peculiar facts of the present case, it is clear
that the Applicant is Proprietor of M/s Suraj Agro Agency. He is possessing the
valid license for business of dealing in a seeds and fertilisers. It is not a case of
the of prosecution that after the co-accused has informed that cotton seeds
were purchased from the present Applicants, they found anything from the
godown of M/s Suraj Agro Agency. On the contrary, seizure panchanama dated
22/5/2018 clearly states that no incriminating material has been found from
13/15 Judg.APL.418.2020.odt
M/s Suraj Agro Agency. Hence, in absence of any material, only on the
statement of co-accused, he cannot be prosecuted in the matter.
19. It is also pertinent to note that to attract the offence under the
various enactment, the specific role and procedure is required to be followed
as stated in above paras. However, in the present case, merely on the basis of
the statement of one of the witness that Applicant has supplied the cotton
seeds to the main accused, under the various provisions i.e. Indian Penal Code,
Seeds Act, Seeds Control Order, 1983, Environment (Protection) Act, Essential
Commodities Act and Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply,
Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009 brought in force by the
prosecution. Hence, in my opinion, as pointed out by the Applicant, no offence
is made out under these various enactments against the present Applicants,
and therefore, continuation of prosecution against the Applicants is nothing
but the abuse of process of law.
20. It is pertinent to note that under theses various enactments,
specific procedure is provided as to how the action should be taken in such
cases and in that regard, Officers of the concerned department are authorised
to take action and deal with the matter. But in the present matter, considering
the role attributed to the Applicant, the charges are not registered against him
14/15 Judg.APL.418.2020.odt
in that capacity. In my opinion, offence under Sections 420, 463, 465, 468 and
471 of Indian Penal Code are at all not attracted against the Applicant in view
of allegation and role attributed to him in the matter. So also offence under the
provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Essential Commodities
Act, 1955 is not made out in view of allegation against him. In respect of Seeds
Act and Rules, the specific procedure incorporated under its various provisions
and provided punishment less than three years imprisonment, therefore, under
Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, same cannot be
investigated by the Police Authorities.
21. The Applicant has demonstrated that neither the offence is made
out against him nor due procedure as provided under the statute is being
followed in the matter.
22. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit to prosecute the
present Applicants in the matter. Continuation of the criminal proceeding
against him would nothing but the abuses of process of law, and therefore,
interference of this Court is necessary in the matter. Accordingly, I proceed to
pass following order.
ORDER
1. Criminal Application is allowed.
15/15 Judg.APL.418.2020.odt
2. Regular Criminal Case No. 83/2019 pending on the file of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Ralegaon, District Yavatmal and Chargesheet No.
216/2019 dated 5/10/2019 arising out of Crime No. 161/2018
registered with Police Station, Wadki, Tahsil Ralegaon, District Yavatmal
for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 463, 465, 468 and 471 of
Indian Penal Code read with Section 15 of the Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986, Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Seeds Act, 1968 and
Rule 7 of the Seeds Rules, 1976, Sections 2(8) and 12 of the
Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and
Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009, Sections 3, 9(c), 10(ch) of Cotton
Seeds Rule, 2010 and Sections 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 of Essential Commodities
Act, 1955 are hereby quashed and set aside.
3. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
23. Since the Criminal Application is disposed of, pending Criminal
Application No. 472/2025 does not survive. The same stands disposed of
accordingly.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.]
vijaya
Signed by: Mrs. V.G. Yadav
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/02/2026 18:13:49
