Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Agarwal Fertilizers And ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 May, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3012/2022
1. M/s Agarwal Fertilizers And Chemicals, 247 B Dhan
Mandi, Hanumangarh Junction (Raj.).
2. Ujjwal Bansal S/o Sh. Gulab Chand Bansal, Aged About
38 Years, R/o W.no. 15, Gali No. 02, Near Punjab
National Bank, Pilibanga, Dist. Hanumangarh.
3. M/s Tawniya Khad Beej Bhandar, Shop No. B-150 New
Mandi Road, Hanumangarh Town, Dist. Hanumangarh.
4. Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Lakshmi Naryan Sharma,
Aged About 42 Years, W.no. 07, Pilibanga, Dist.
Hanumangarh.
5. M/s Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Tilak Bazar,
Hisar, Haryana.
6. Harkesh Rohila S/o Sh. Sher Singh, Aged About 44 Years,
Vpo Mod Teh. Narnod, Hisar, At Present R/o M/s Shakti
Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. 97-98 New Rishi Nagar,
Hisar, Haryana. Branch Manager T-9, 10, 3Rd Floor,
Agarsen Tower Central Spine, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. The Seed Inspector, Assistand Director Agriculture Office
(Extention) Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shardul Singh Bishnoi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, P.P.
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
24/05/2022
1. By way of the present misc. petition under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-3012/2022]
challenged the order dated 20.06.2018 passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, (hereinafter referred to as the
trial court) whereby cognizance has been taken against the
petitioners for the offence under Section 8-A, 13(1)(c) of Seed
Control Order, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the order of 1983)
read with Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners took the Court through
the seizure memo / mouka parcha to highlight that the samples of
the seeds which were collected from the petitioners' premises
were packed in a cloth bag and, therefore, the same is contrary to
law as the seeds can gather moisture.
3. In support of the contention aforesaid, learned counsel for
the petitioners relied upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of
this Court rendered in the case of Gulshan Kumar Vs. The State
of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.
123/2013) & S.B. Criminal Misc (Pet.) No. 6374/2021 (M/s
Shakti Vardhak Hiybrid Seeds Private Limited Vs. The State
of Rajasthan) and submitted that the petitioners' case is
squarely covered by the judgments aforesaid.
4. It was also argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that
as per Rule 23 of the Seeds Rules, 1973, the report of the sample
should come within 30 days, whereas in the present case the
samples were collected on 04.10.2017 and the report has been
prepared on 22.11.2017, resultantly the proceedings are vitiated.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that
the grounds which the petitioners have taken before this Court are
matter of evidence and the order taking cognizance cannot be
faulted with based on the grounds raised by the petitioners.
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-3012/2022]
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. A perusal of the seizure memo / mouka parcha reveals that
the seeds in question were packed in a cloth sachet, whereafter
they were kept in a hard paper bag duly sealed and pasted and
then, tied with strong thread / Sutali.
8. This Court is, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the seeds
were not simply packed in a cloth sachet as has been done in the
case of Gulshan Kumar (supra).
9. A perusal of the facts noted in the case of Gulshan Kumar
(supra) reveals that the samples were packed in cloth bags for
which the Court recorded finding that it may catch moisture,
whereas in the instant case, the seeds after being packed being
packed in cloth bags, were kept in a hard paper bag ruling out or
reducing the possibility of attracting moisture.
10. This being the position, it is too early to quash the
proceedings without there being any adjudication of the
parameters of the samples.
11. Adverting to the other argument of Mr. Bishnoi that the
proceedings are liable to be quashed as the report has taken more
than 30 days; this Court is of the view that such argument is
required to be considered and dealt with after completion of
evidence and upon appraisal of entire oral & ocular evidence
because, Rule 23 of the Rules of 1973 postulates that the
Laboratory has to send report within 30 days of the receipt of the
sample. The date of receipt of the sample by the Laboratory at
Sriganganagar is not on record. It is, therefore, a matter of
evidence as to when the samples were sent and received by the
Laboratory at Sriganganagar.
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-3012/2022]
12. While rejecting petitioners' first ground, a liberty is hereby
given to the petitioner to take this ground at the time of final
hearing of the case. If such contention is raised, the trial court
shall consider the same in accordance with law.
13. The petition is however dismissed, as indicated herein above.
14. Stay application also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
219- A. Arora / Prashant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
