[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ramesh S/O Mahadevrao Hajare vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Kelod Ta. Saoner ... on 25 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4954-DB
1 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 427 OF 2020
Ramesh S/o Mahadevrao Hajare,
Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. House No. 1794, Block No.1&2,
Ward No.4, Kelod, Tah. Saoner,
Dist. Nagpur. APPLICANT
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Thr. Police Station Officer, Police
Station Kelod, Tah. Saoner,
Dist. Nagpur (Rural).
2. Manojkumar S/o Baburao Keche
Aged 49 years, Presently Serving as
Certification Officer O/o Divisional
Joint Director of Agriculture,
Administrative Building No.2, 7th
Floor, Civil Line, Nagpur 440001. NON-APPLICANTS
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. S.D. Borkute, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. A.M. Kadukar, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 25th MARCH, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
2 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned
Counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the
Non-applicant No.1/State.
3. The present Application is preferred by the
Applicant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with
Crime No.123/2020 registered with Police Station Kelod,
District Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"),
Section 7 of the Seeds Act, 1966, Order 3 of the Seeds
(Control) Order, 1983, Rules 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of
the Seeds Rules, 1968, Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds
(Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale & Fixation of Sale
Price) Rules, 2010 and Sections 7 and 15 of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 and consequent proceeding arising out of
the same bearing R.C.C. No. 187/2024.
4. The Applicant is the owner of "Shri Siddhivinayak
Krishi Kendra" since 2001 at Kelod, Tahsil Saoner, District
Nagpur. He is the sole proprietor of the said Krishi Kendra. The
3 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt
Applicant has obtained the seeds license under the provision of
Seeds (Control) Order, 1983. The Non-applicant
No.2/Certification Officer O/o Divisional Joint Director of
Agriculture, Nagpur who has lodged the report against the
present Applicant on 14.05.2020. It was alleged that, he and his
squad raided the Krishi Kendra of the Applicant and they found
the Applicant unauthorizedly without licence and illegally
having possession and stored 12 packets of BT-HTDT cotton
seeds having label of "Navid Secunder Badsha" of Rs.8,760/- for
sale to agriculturist. As per the allegations, the said seeds are
prohibited hybrid cotton seeds, which is not permissible to sell
in Maharashtra and thereby the Applicant has contraband the
provisions of Rules 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the
Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution,
Sale & Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2010 and Sections 7 and 15
of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant, who
submitted that in fact the FIR itself is not maintainable as in
view of Section 15 of the Seeds Act, it is the complaint which
requires to be filed by the person who is having grievance about
the same. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the
4 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt
decision of this Court in Criminal Application (APL)
No. 418/2020 decided on 16.02.2026 and submitted that, this
Court on the basis of the earlier 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
it is held that for the offence punishable under the Seeds Act,
1968 and the Seeds Control Order, 1983 the Police Authorities
cannot investigate the matter, it was the Complainant who has
to file a complaint as the offence 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 offence, hence they cannot be investigated by the
Police Authorities in view of Section 155(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
6. The another ground raised by the learned Counsel
for the Applicant is that, there is no authorization in the name
of the present Complainant also and he is not authorized to
lodge the prosecution. On that ground also, the Application
deserves to be allowed.
5 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt
7. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said
contention and submitted that, considering the Applicant has
contraband the provisions of Maharashtra Cotton Seeds
(Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale & Fixation of Sale
Price) Act and the statements of various witnesses as well as the
statement of the Complainant shows the involvement of the
present Applicant in the alleged offence, and therefore, the
Application deserves to be rejected.
8. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
entire investigation papers it reveals that the allegations levelled
against the present Applicant is that he has stored the
prohibited seeds which are prohibited in Maharashtra and
thereby contraband the Order 3 of the Seeds (Control) Order,
1983, Rules 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Seeds Rules,
1968, Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of
Supply, Distribution, Sale & Fixation of Sale Price) Rules, 2010
and Sections 7 and 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986. The Applicant has also prayed for the quashing of the FIR
as well as for the quashing of the charge-sheet.
6 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt
9. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the
Applicant that, the present Non-applicant No.2 who is the
original Complainant is the Certification Officer O/o Divisional
Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagpur and he is not authorized
by the Controller, and therefore, he is not the authorized person
to lodge the prosecution.
10. Section 2 of the Act of 2009 deals with definition
and Section 2(ii) defines "Controller" means the Cotton Seed
Controller appointed by the Government under Section 3.
Section 3 pertains to 'Appointment of Controller' - The State
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint
an officer, possessing such qualifications as may be prescribed,
to be the Controller. From the plain reading of the said Section
it could be gathered that it would require notification in the
Official Gazette to appoint an Officer having requisite
qualification to be the Controller. The powers of the Controller
are enumerated in Section 4 of the Act of 2009. Section 15 of
the Act of 2009 shows that no Court shall take cognizance of an
offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint, in
writing, made by the Controller or any other officer authorized
7 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt
by him for this purpose. In the present case, the FIR is lodged by
the present Complainant who is serving as Certification Officer
O/o Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagpur. Admittedly,
there is no notification in his name issued or any authorization
letter by the Controller for this purpose.
11. The Notification and the pleadings which requires to
be filed on record to show that he is authorized person who is
authorized by the Controller to lodge the prosecution or initiate
any action against the present Applicant.
12. The another ground raised by the learned Counsel
for the Applicant is that, in view of Section 155(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure as the offences alleged for which the
punishment provided is less than three years, and therefore, the
same are non-cognizable offences, and therefore, the complaint
is provided and the Non-applicant No.2 has lodged the FIR and
the Police are not having authorities to investigate the matter. In
view of that, the FIR deserves to be quashed.
13. In respect of offences under Rules 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13 and 14 of the Seeds Act, 1968 and Order 3 of the Seeds
8 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt
(Control) Order 1983, the Applicant has relied upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Korra Srinivas Rao
Krishnamurthy & Another (supra) 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 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
9 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt
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."
14. On the basis of this judgment it is the submission of
the present Applicant that offences under the provisions of
Seeds Act, 1968 and Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 Police
Authorities cannot investigate in the matter. Offences under the
Seeds Act and the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 for which
punishment provided is less than three years imprisonment, and
therefore, the same are non-cognizable offences and hence, it
cannot be investigated by the Police authorities. According to
the Applicant, the mechanism has been provided under Rule
10 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt
23-A of the Seeds Rule, 1968 to initiate complaint but in the
present matter no such complaint has been lodged against the
present Applicant, and therefore, in absence of any investigation
at the instance of the Seed Inspector or any person as
contemplated under the Seeds Act and Rules framed thereunder,
no action can be initiated against the present Applicant.
15. In respect of the offence under Section 15 of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, from the perusal of the
complaint as well as charge-sheet, there is absolutely no
allegation that Applicant has done anything which is resulted
into the discharge or emission of any environmental pollution in
cases of standard prescribed in Section 15 of the Environment
Protection Act, which provides penalty for contravention of the
provisions of the said Act. However, the allegations made in the
complaint as well as material collected during investigation
nowhere 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.
11 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt
16. In view of the observation of this Court in the case
of Korra Srinivas Rao Krishnamurthy (supra), the Police
Authorities cannot initiate criminal proceeding against the
present Applicant and only remedy is available to him to file the
proceeding under Rule 23-A of the Seeds Rules, 1968. Hence,
the entire proceedings which are initiated against the Applicant
is vitiated for the aforesaid reasons.
17. It is pertinent to note that, to attract the offences
under the various enactments, the specific rule and procedure is
required to be followed as stated therein. However, in the
present case, merely on the basis of the FIR lodged by the
Non-applicant No.2, the crime is registered against the present
Applicant, which is without following the due procedure of law.
The specific procedure incorporated under the various
provisions and provided punishment less than three years
imprisonment, and therefore, under Section 155(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, same cannot be investigated by the
Police Authorities.
12 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt
18. 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.
19. As far as the offence punishable under Section 420
of IPC is concerned, which requires intention since inception.
The ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of
IPC which requires to establish the offence are:
To constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC
there has to be (1) Deception of any person, either by making a
false or misleading representation or by other action or by
omission; (2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person
to deliver any property, or (3) The consent that any person shall
retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that
person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or
omit.
20. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit to
prosecute the present Applicant in the matter and continuation
of the criminal proceeding against him would nothing but the
abuse of the process of law, and therefore, the Application
13 33.APL.427-2020.JUDGMENT.odt
deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following order.
ORDER
i. Criminal Application is allowed.
ii. The First Information Report in connection with
Crime No. 123/2020 registered with Police Station
Kelod, District Nagpur for the offences punishable
under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, Section 7 of the Seeds Act, 1966,
Order 3 of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, Rules 7,
8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Seeds Rules, 1968,
Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds
(Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale & Fixation
of Sale Price) Rules, 2010 and Sections 7 and 15 of
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and
consequent proceeding arising out of the same
bearing R.C.C. No. 187/2024, are hereby quashed
and set aside to the extent of the present Applicant.
21. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/03/2026 19:23:55
