[Cites 26, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vishwas Bio Genatic Pvt. Ltd. Thr. It ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Talegaon ... on 27 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:3482-DB
2 398.21.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 398 OF 2021
1. Vishwas Bio Genatic Private Limited
421-C, GIDC Mansa, Dist.
Gandhinagar (Gujarat) 382845, APPLICANT
Through it Director Dineshkumar
Baldevbhai Chaudhari, Aged about
48, occupation Business,
R/o E2/2 Greencity, Section 26,
Gandhinagar Gujarat
// V E R S U S //
1. The State of Maharashtra, NON-APPLICANT
Through Police Station Officer, of
Police Station Talegao
Dist. Amravati Rural
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Manish Shukla, Advocate h/f Mr. R.V. Gahilot, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. N.B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant /State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:- 20.02.2026
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:-27.02.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal with the consent
of learned counsel for the parties.
2 398.21.odt
3. The present application is preferred by the applicant
for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with
crime No.134/2020 registered at Police Station Talegao District
Amravati (Rural) for the offences punishable under Sections 420,
263, 465 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short, 'IPC') and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Seeds
Rules 1968 & Sections 3, 7 and 9 Essential Commodities Act,
1955, Section 15 of Environment Conservation Act and Section
10 of Maharashtra Cotton Seeds Act and Section 7 of the Seeds
Act, 1966 and consequent proceeding arising out of the same
bearing RCC No.243/2020.
4. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the
application are as under:-
The informant who is serving as Police Officer was on
patrolling duty on 06.06.2020. He noticed a suspicious vehicle
and therefore, he intercepted the said vehicle and found few bags
of "Harsha 555 Bt. 11 Cotton Seeds" and an enquiry with the
driver with regard to the origin of the seeds the driver could not
give satisfactory answer. Therefore, vehicle was seized. The seeds
were sent for analysis and report was called. From the report it
2 398.21.odt
revealed that the cotton seeds which are found are adulterated
seeds. Therefore, one Rambir Ramsaran Singh has been arrested
in crime No.134/2020. During inquiry with the said Rambir
Ramsaran Singh it revealed that he has transferred an amount of
Rs.1,65,000/- in bank account of the applicant and therefore, the
notice was issued to present applicant to remain present at police
station. Present applicant filed his reply to the notice and stated
that the transaction of transfer of money is in respect of cotton
seeds which are supplied by the applicant to the co-accused
Rambir Ramsaran Singh in the year 2019 and same were
dispatched to him by the applicant in the year 2019 itself. The
seeds which are sold by applicant/company to co-accused is legal
and is having license for manufacturing and selling the same.
Gujarat Government as well as Government of Harayana has
issued the requisite license to him. Therefore, applicant has no
nexus with the alleged incident and money received by the
applicant is in respect of legal transaction. In view of that no
offence is made against present applicant.
2 398.21.odt
5. However, the Investigating Officer has carried out
investigation and submitted charge-sheet against the present
applicant Hence this application.
6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant who
submitted that in view of Section 15 it was only controller or the
person who is nominated by the controller is authorised person to
file complaint. First Information Report is not maintainable under
the Seeds Act. He submitted that even accepting the allegation as
it is, no prima-facie case is made out against the present applicant
as nothing is on record to show that he has illegally sold the said
seeds to the co-accused Rambir Ramsaran Singh. In fact the
vouchers which are produced from record and part of the charge-
sheet sufficiently shows that applicant has sold out the said cotton
seeds on 22.04.2019, 30.04.2019, 7.05.2019 and 13.05.2019 and
said consignment was delivered to co-accused on 22.04.2019,
30.04.2019, 07.05.2019 and 13.05.2019. There is nothing on
record to show that the articles which are seized are the same
seeds which are sold by the present applicant to the co-accused. In
view of that neither offence under Sections 420, 465, 467 is made
out nor the offence is made out under the provisions of Seeds Act.
2 398.21.odt
In view of that he prays for quashing of the FIR. In support of his
contentions he placed reliance on Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds vs.
State of Maharashtra in Criminal Application No.4402/2013
decided on 03.03.2015, Criminal Application No,346/2015
decided on 07.04.2016, Criminal Application No.5256/2013
decided on 15.09.2014 and Criminal Application No.232/2013
along with connected application decided on 16.01.2015.
7. Per contra learned APP submitted that the nexus
between the present applicant and other co-accused is already
established by the prosecution during investigation. There is no
dispute that present applicant has supplied cotton seeds to the co-
accused which subsequently seized from him while transporting
the same. Thus, present applicant is the manufacturer of the said
seeds and therefore, prima-facie case is made out against the
present applicant.
8. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
investigation papers there is no dispute that Vishwas Bio Genatic
Private Limited is Gujarat based Company dealing with
manufacturing of the cotton seeds. The certificate of incorporation
2 398.21.odt
is issued to the applicant company by Assistant Registrar of
Companies Gujarat on 05.02.2008. Government of Gujarat i.e.
Deputy Director of Agriculture also issued a license to carry on the
business of dealer in seeds to the present applicant on terms and
conditions dated 30.01.2019, which was valid up to 29.01.2022.
9. The details of the particulars of the seeds to be sold
by the present applicant company is (1) KING-999 BG II, (2)
KING-555 BG II, (3) JHORAD GOLD BG II (4) KING-777 BG II.
The said Marketing Registration is also issued to the present
applicant dated 01.05.2019 by which he was permitted to market
the said seeds. Similarly, the Additional Director of Agriculture
Directorate of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Haryana, issued
license to the present applicant to sell/stock/ marketing of BT
Cotton Hybrid varieties as approved by GEAC for the year 2020-21
by the Haryana Government. The letter of Additional Director of
Agriculture which is on record shows that permission is granted by
Haryana Government to the present applicant company for
marketing BT Cotton Hybrid Seeds approved by GEAC. Thus as
far as selling and marketing by the present applicant is concerned,
it reveals that it is having due license for the marketing and
2 398.21.odt
selling and stocking of the cotton seeds issued by the Government
of Gujarat as well as Government of Haryana. It is further
undisputed that the seized seeds nowhere discloses the name of
the manufacturer, name of the dealer or marketer. Written
complaint filed by the Seed Fertiliser Insecticide Quality Control
Inspector shows that stock which was seized on inception of
Tempo Tata truck bearing No. MH-27X6569 nowhere discloses
the name of the marketer, dealer or manufacturer. During
investigation, Investigating Officer has collected various
documents which shows that by invoice No.19 cotton seeds of
King 777 Bollguard BG II 570 GM worth of Rs.48,000/- was sold
by the present applicant company to the co-accused Rambirsing
s/o Ramcharansingh Barwala. By invoice No.37 dated 30.04.2019
cotton seeds of KING 777 Bollguard BG II 570 GM of 102 in
numbers worth of Rs.45,000/- was sold to the co-accused by the
present applicant company. Similarly, by invoice No. 82 and 113
dated 7.05.2019 and 13.05.2019 the cotton seeds of the similar
description were sold by the present applicant/company to the co-
accused. It further reveals that the said goods were delivered to
the co-accused by the applicant/company through Punjab Road
Lines on the relevant dates. Thus, it is apparent that the stock
2 398.21.odt
which was sold by the present applicant/company having the
name of the manufacturer type of the seeds mentioned on the
consignment. The raid was conducted on 06.06.2020 i.e. much
after the consignment was delivered to the co-accused by the
present applicant. Thus, as far as nexus regarding seized goods
are same goods which are manufacturered by the present
applicant. No investigation was carried out by the Investigating
Officer. Investigation papers also nowhere shows that any
distributor, customer has made any complaint regarding quality of
the goods manufactured by the present applicant company. In fact
the investigation papers nowhere shows that it is same goods
which are sold by the present applicant to the other co-accused
are seized by the investigating agency.
10. Another ground raised by the applicant is that no
opportunity was granted to him to re-analysis the samples. In view
of Section 15 (1)(b) of the Seeds Act, 1966 which deals with
manner in which the samples are to be taken which reads as
under:-
"15(1)(b). except in special cases provided by rules
made under this Act, take three representative
samples in the prescribed manner and mark and seal
2 398.21.odt
or fasten up each sample in such manner as its nature
permits."
"15(2) When samples of any seed of any notified kind
or variety are taken under sub-section (1), the Seed
Inspector shall-
(a) deliver one sample to the person from
whom it has been taken;
(b) send in the prescribed manner another
sample for analysis to the Seed Analyst for the area
within which such sample has been taken; and
(c) retain the remaining sample in the
prescribed manner for production in case any legal
proceedings are taken or for analysis by the Central
Seed Laboratory under subsection (2) of section 16,
as the case may be."
"16. Report of Seed Analyst.- (1) The Seed
Analyst shall, as soon as may be after the receipt of
the sample under sub-section (2) of section 15,
analyse the sample at the State Seed Laboratory and
deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, one copy
of the (2) report of the result of the analysis to the
Seed Inspector and another copy thereof to the
person from whom the sample has been taken.
(2) After the institution of a prosecution under
this Act, the accused vendor or the complainant may,
on payment of the prescribed fee, make an
application to the court for sending any of the
samples mentioned in clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-
section (2) of section 15 to the Central Seed
Laboratory for its report and on receipt of the
application, the court shall first ascertain that the
mark and the seal or fastening as provided in clause
(b) of subsection (1) of section 15 are intact and may
then despatch the sample under its own seal to the
Central Seed Laboratory which shall thereupon send
its report to the court in the prescribed form within
2 398.21.odt
one month from the date of receipt of the sample,
specifying the result of the analysis."
11. Thus, in view of Section 15(1)(b) of the Seeds Act,
1966 it was obligatory on the part of the Seeds Inspector to obtain
three representative samples. In the present case, there is nothing
on record to show that how many samples are obtained. The
grounds raised by the applicant that as no samples were
preserved, therefore, there was no opportunity for him to file an
application for re analysis the said samples as the third samples
was not available which required to be preserved for him.
12. Thus, after going through the entire investigation
papers in fact nexus between the present applicant and the other
co-accused itself is not established prima-facie by the Investigating
Agency. There is nothing on record to show that seized articles
are the same articles which are sold by the present applicant to
the other co-accused. In fact recitals of the FIR itself shows that
seized articles were not having any description as to the name of
the marketer name of the manufacturer name of the dealer. On
the contrary the consignment which is sent by the present
applicant to the co-accused on various dates and invoices number
2 398.21.odt
issued by the present applicant specifically shows the description
of the seeds in the invoices itself. Therefore, there is no nexus
between the seized articles and article or the stock which is sold
by the present applicant.
13. The applicant is charged with the offences punishable
under Sections 420, 463, 465 read with 34 of the IPC. As far as
offence punishable under Section 420 of the is concerned to
constitute the said offence there must be deception that i.e.
accused must have deceived someone that by such deception the
accused must induced the person (i) to deliver any property to any
person, (2) to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a
valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which
is capable of being converted into a valuable property (3) that the
accused must have done so dishonestly. The offence punishable
under Section 120 (b) of IPC to constitute criminal conspiracy
there must be agreement between two or more person. The
agreement should be to do or caused be done illegal act or some
act which is not illegal, by illegal means or provided that
agreement is other than to commit an offence, the prosecution
2 398.21.odt
must further prove or that some acts besides the agreement was
done by one or more of the parties in pursuance of it.
14. Now the question is, whether the allegations in the
aforesaid FIR are sufficient to constitute the alleged offences.
Admittedly the answer is no as investigation papers nowhere
disclose any complaint against the present applicant as to
deception by any customer. Nexus between present applicant and
co-accused is also not established. Nexus between stock which is
supplied by the present applicant and the stock seized is also not
established. For all above these grounds the application deserves
to be allowed.:-
Hence, I pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is allowed.
(ii) First Information Report in connection with
crime No.134/2020 registered at Police Station Talegao
District Amravati (Rural) for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 263, 465 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
2 398.21.odt
13 and 14 of Seeds Rules 1968 & Sections 3, 7 and 9 of
Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 15 of Environment
Conservation Act and Section 10 of Maharashtra Cotton
Seeds Act and Section 7 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and
consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC
No.243/2020 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of
present applicant.
15. Criminal Application stands disposed of in the above
terms.
( URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/02/2026 16:43:35
