M/S Shakti Vardhak Hiybrid Seeds ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:40147)
2023 Latest Caselaw 9962 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9962 Raj
Judgement Date : 22 November, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

M/S Shakti Vardhak Hiybrid Seeds ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:40147) on 22 November, 2023

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2023:RJ-JD:40147]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6374/2021

1.       M/s Shakti Vardhak Hiybrid Seeds Private Limited, Tilak
         Bazar, Hisar (Haryana).
2.       Harkesh Rohila, Manager, Aged About 43 Years, M/s
         Shakti Vardhak Hiybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Tilak Bazar, Hisar
         (Haryana).
3.       Vedprakash Arya S/o Sh. Ramkumar Arya, Aged About 53
         Years, Managing Director M/s Shakti Vardhak Hiybrid
         Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Tilak Bazar, Hisar (Haryana).
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Shardul Singh
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

22/11/2023

1. The present misc. petition has been filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18.05.2015 passed by learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer in Criminal Case No.187/2015.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has specifically alleged

that the procedure adopted on complaint is questionable on the

ground that mandatory procedure prescribed under the Seeds Act,

1966 has not been adhered in the matter and on this ground the

petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated

18.05.2015 and the entire proceedings in consequence to it.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that a bare

perusal of Form No.V which is memorandum to seed analyst

[2023:RJ-JD:40147] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6374/2021]

reflects that the sample of seeds were packed in a cloth bag and

sent to respective laboratory for analysis. Learned counsel further

contends that the manner in which the sample of seeds were

packed and sent for laboratory analysis is in clear violation of the

mandatory procedure prescribed under the Seeds Act and Rules

framed therein. In support of his contention, learned counsel

placed reliance on a decision in the case of Gauri Shanker & Ors.

Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2011(2)Cr.L.R.(Raj.)1685. With

these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for

quashing the proceedings.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has not disputed the legal position

as per judgment in Gauri Shanker (supra). Learned Public

Prosecutor however submits that the instant petition is filed by the

petitioners in the capacity of owner of the petitioner firm,

therefore, indulgence can be granted to the petitioner only to the

extent of culpability attributed to M/s. Shakti Vardhak Hiybrid

Seeds Private Limited.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

5. It is seen that in the seed analysis memorandum of seed

analyst Form-V, it has been specifically mentioned that the sample

of seeds has been packed in a bag of clothes and sent to the

laboratory for analysis. The relevant exert from the memorandum

of seed analyst form-V is reproduced hereunder:-

"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 vuqlwfp esa mYysf[kr izfØ;k½ ds vuqlkj fy;s x;s ,oa izR;sd uewus ds fy, fu/kkZfjr izi= ¼5½ dh ikap ikap izfr;ka rS;kj dj viuh lhy ,oa ihry dh eqnzk ls vafdr fd;kA izR;sd uewuk

[2023:RJ-JD:40147] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6374/2021]

fu/kkZfjr ek=k 250 xzke otu dk diM+s dh FkSyh esa j[kdj mlesa izi= ¼5½ dh izfr j[k dj iDds /kkxs ls cka/kk x;kA rRi"pkr~ dBksj eksVs dkxt esa yisVdj dkxt ds fdukjksa dks xksan ;k vU; fpidkus okys inkFkZ ls HkyhHkkafr iSd dj iSfdV dks eksVs /kkxs@lwryh ls Øksl cka/krs gq, xkaB yxkbZ ,oa foØsrk ls iSfdV ij gLrk{kj djk;s x;s rFkk /kkxs dh xkaB ds Åij] uhps o nks vU; txgksa ij piM+h ls esjh ihry dh eqnzk vafdr djrs gq, lhYM fd;k x;kA"

6. Taking into account the above noted recitals from the

complaint and upon consideration of the arguments advanced at

Bar by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the Seed

Inspector at the time of taking samples has not followed the

mandatory procedure.

7. In the case of Gauri Shanker (supra), a co-ordinate Bench of

this Court has held that non-compliance of mandatory provisions

contained in Seeds Act and Rules made thereunder can vitiate the

proceedings of a complaint which is founded on violation of Seeds

Act.

8. In view thereof and relying on the judgment passed in the

case of Gauri Shanker (supra), in my view, proceedings of the