M/S Bhukarka Treading Company vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3956 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3956 Raj
Judgement Date : 3 May, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

M/S Bhukarka Treading Company vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 3 May, 2023

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2023/RJJD/013333]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6373/2021

1. M/s Hariyana Beej Bhandar, Shop No. 151, Sadulsahar, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.).

2. Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Nihalchand, Aged About 55 Years, Ward No. 11, Sadulsahar, Dist. Sri Ganganagar.

3. M/s Shakti Vardhak Hiybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd., New Rishi Nagar, Hisar (Haryana).

4. Harkesh Rohila S/o Sh. Sher Singh, Aged About 43 Years, Vpo Moth, Tehsil Narnod, Hisar. Office Addres 97-98 New Rishi Nagar, Hisar.

----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3635/2020

1. M/s Bhukarka Treading Company, Shop No. 2 B, Sadulsahar, District Sri Ganganagar.

2. Ramkishan Goyal S/o Sh. Radheshyam Goyal, Aged About 45 Years, Ward No. 10 Sadulsahar, District Sri Ganganagar.

3. Hariyana Beej Bhandar Sadulsahar, District Sri Ganganagar.

4. Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Nihalchand, Aged About 54 Years, Ward No. 11, Sadulsahar, District Sri Ganganagar.

5. Shakti Vardhak Hiybrid Seeds Private Limited, Hisar (Haryana).

6. Harkesh Rohila S/o Sh. Sher Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Vpo Moth, Tehsil Narnod, Hisar. T 9,10 Third Floor Agarsen Tower Central Spain Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. M/s Hiybrid Seeds Private Limited, Having Registered Officer 97-98 New Rishi Nagar Hisar (Haryana).

----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent

[2023/RJJD/013333] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-6373/2021]

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shardul Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment / Order

REPORTABLE 03/05/2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The misc. petition No. 6373/2021 has been preferred by the

petitioners challenging the order dated 10.12.2019 passed by

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Criminal Case

No. 378/2019, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance

for offence under 8-A, 13(1)(c) Seed Control Order, 1983 read

with Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The misc.

petition No. 3635/2020 has been preferred by the petitioners

challenging the order dated 21.11.2019 passed by learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No. 346/2019,

whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance for offence under

8-A, 13(1)(c) Seed Control Order, 1983 read with Section 3/7

Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The principle contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners on the basis whereof the proceedings of the complaint

have been assailed is that the mandatory procedure prescribed for

sampling of the seeds has not been followed in this case and,

therefore, the proceedings of the complaint are liable to be

quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record

the complaint filed in this case by the Seed Inspector cum

Agriculture Officer. It is submitted that as per the admitted fact

mentioned in the complaint, the samples of the seeds were simply

[2023/RJJD/013333] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-6373/2021]

packed in the cotton bags and sent to the laboratory for analysis.

He, therefore, contends that the mandatory procedure prescribed

in the Seeds Act and Rules was not followed. Placing reliance on

the decision of this Court in the case of Gauri Shanker & Ors. vs.

State reported in 2011 (2) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 1685, learned counsel for

the petitioners submits that the proceedings are liable to be

quashed as the mandatory procedure of sampling has not been

adhered to.

Learned PP is not in a position to dispute the fact that the

procedure of taking samples of the seed as prescribed under the

Act and the Rules has not been followed in this case.

I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone

through the material on record.

The contention of the petitioners is that the fungus found on

the seeds was due to the moisture as the samples were taken in

the cotton bags and germination of the seeds was found less.

It is relevant to quote the relevant portion of the mauka

report prepared by the complainant Agriculture Officer which

reads as under :-

"mijksDrkuqlkj uewus foØsrk ds ifjlj ls fu/kkZfjr fof/k ¼cht vf/kfu;e 1966 ds rgr cht fu;e 1968 dh fcUnq la[;k 24] 25 ,oa 26 ,oa cht fu;U=.k vkns'k 1983 ds vuqPNsn 13 ds rgr vuqlwph esa mYysf[kr izfØ;k½ ds vuqlkj fy;s x;s rFkk izR;sd uewus ds fy, fu/kkZfjr izi= ¼5½ dh ikap&ikap izfr;ka rS;kj dj viuh lhy o ihry dh eqnzk ls vafdr fd;kA izR;sd uewuk fu/kkZfjr ek=k 180 gm xzke otu dk diM+s dh FkSyh esa j[kdj mlesa izi= ¼5½ dh izfr j[k dj iDds /kkxs ls cka/kk x;k rRi'pkr dBksj eksVs dkxt esa yisVdj dkxt ds fdukjksa dks xksan ;k vU; fpidkus okys inkFkZ ls HkyhHkkafr iSd dj iSfdV dks eksVs /[email protected] ls ØkWl cka/krs gq;s xkaB yxkbZ xbZ ,oa foØsrk ls iSdsV ij gLrk{kj djk;s x;s rFkk /kkxs dh xkaB ds mij] uhps o nks vU; txgksa ij piM+h ls esjh ihry dh eqnzk vafdr

[2023/RJJD/013333] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-6373/2021]

djrs gq, lhYM fd;k x;k ¼cht fu;a=.k vkns'k dh vuqlwfp ds fcUnq la[;k 4 ,] ch o lh ds vuqlkj½A"

(emphasis supplied)

On consideration of the arguments advanced at bar and upon

going through the complaint filed in this case, it is evident that the

Seed Inspector at the time of taking samples has not followed the

mandatory procedure i.e. the manner in which the samples of

Seed have to be taken. The samples have simply been packed in

cloth bags which is not a procedure permitted under the Act or the

Rules. This Court whilst dealing with an identical issue in the case

of Gauri Shanker (supra), has held that the non-compliance of the

mandatory procedure laid down in the Seeds Act & Rules

regarding the manner in which the seed samples are to be taken,

vitiates the proceedings upon the complaint filed for the violation

of the Seeds Act.