Avani Seeds Limited Through ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 5530 Guj

     R/CR.MA/18329/2018                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 07/06/2021




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18329 of 2018


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

==========================================================

1      Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
       see the judgment ?

2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
       judgment ?

4      Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
       as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
       order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
AVANI SEEDS LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER VASANTBHAI
              RAMCHANDRA KHAMBETE & 5 other(s)
                           Versus
                 STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
for the Applicant(s) No. 5
MR SK PATEL(654) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,6
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK(3) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MAITHALI D MEHTA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

    CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                                Date : 07/06/2021

                                ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. SK Patel for the applicants and learned APP Ms. Maithali D Mehta for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

R/CR.MA/18329/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/06/2021

2. By way of this petition the petitioners challenges the complaint being Criminal Case No:1277 of 2018, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhoi, Dist:Vadodara under section 6 and 7 of the Seeds Act,1966.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph no.2 of the complaint, which shows that the samples of the seeds were drawn on 23.02.2017, whereas in the complaint itself it is mentioned that the seeds belong to a company called Avani Seeds Ltd., wherein lot number was also mentioned in the complaint along with the production date i.e, 18.01.2017. The complaint also mentions that the seeds in question had valid shelf- life up to 17.10.2017. Learned Advocate further draws attention of this Court to paragraph 3, where the report of the laboratory has been supplied to the applicant which is dated 22.03.2017. Learned Advocate has thereafter, drawn attention of this Court to the provision of Section 16 of the Seeds Act which reads thus:

"16(I) 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 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

R/CR.MA/18329/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/06/2021

that the mark and the seal or fastening as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (I) of section 15 are intact and may then dispatch 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 one month from the date of receipt of the sample, specifying the result of the analysis.

(3) The report sent by the Central Seed Laboratory under sub-section (2) shall supersede the report given by the Seed Analyst under sub-section (I).

(4) Where the report sent by the Central Seed Laboratory under sub-section (2) is produced in any proceedings under section 19, it shall not be necessary in such proceedings to produce any sample or part thereof taken for analysis."

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel has relied upon section 16(2) of the Seeds Act and submitted that the scheme of the said section being that once the sample is collected the same is sent for analysis to the Seed Analyst and the copy of the analysis report is also given to the person from whom the sample has been taken. Thereafter, it is open for the accused to challenge the report by way of an application to the concerned court for sending samples to the Central Seed Laboratory for its report and upon receipt of such application the Court after ascertaining the mark and seal etc, may dispatch the sample under its own seal to the Central Seeds Laboratory, shall thereupon send its report to the court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the sample and also specifying the result of the analysis.

4.1. Sub-section 16(3) states that report of the Central Seed

R/CR.MA/18329/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/06/2021

Laboratory under sub-section (2) shall supersede the report given by the Seed Analyst under sub-section (I).

4.2. In the instant case, the complaint impugned is filed on 30.06.2018, that is much after the sample seeds in question has lost their efficacy, since they were having valid shelf-life up to 17.10.2017. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel has therefore submitted that valuable right of the applicant-accused to question the findings of the said analysis of the samples in question, for re-analysis by the Central Seeds Laboratory has been lost. Therefore, according to the learned Advocate the complaint itself becomes invalid and deserves to be quashed by this Court.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Limited V. State of Maharashtra reported in 2017 13 SCC 367. A similar situation had arisen in the case before the Supreme Court, where the sample of the seeds were taken on 01.09.2002 and the report of the said analysis was made available on 26.09.2002, whereas the shelf-life of the seeds were up to 07.11.2002. The complaint in question was filed on 31.03.2003. The Supreme Court in the said case has observed as thus :

"4. In the present case, by the time the complaint came to be filed on 31.03.2003, the sample has lost its shelf-life. If that be so, the appellant-accused must be understood to have been deprived of his valuable right to reanalysis.

5. Such deprivation will go to the root of the matter and render the prosecution futile and redundant. If that is so, we are inclined to hold that there is no reason why the proceedings should not be quashed. We order accordingly."

R/CR.MA/18329/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/06/2021

6. In view of the above ratio, learned Advocate has submitted that this Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned complaint.

7. On the other hand, learned APP Ms. Maithali Mehta, has submitted that on perusal of the complaint itself shows that the delay has occurred since adequate opportunity has been extended to the applicant and therefore, she submits that this Court may not interfere with the impugned complaint.

8. Learned Advocates having submitted nothing further.

9. Considering the undisputed fact that the complaint is preferred after the sample had lost its shelf-life, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court would be squarely applicable inasmuch as the applicant-accused has been deprived of his valuable right of re- analysis. Under such circumstance, relying upon the view taken by the Supreme Court in the instant case, the impugned complaint being Criminal Case no. 1277 of 2018, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhoi, Dist: Vadodara, cannot be sustained and hence the same is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Radhika