Telangana High Court

Vuda Nagesh vs The State Of Telangana on 10 January, 2023

Bench: K.Surender

      HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                      AT HYDERABAD
                            *****

            Criminal Petition No.2172 OF 2021

Between:

Vuda Nagesh & Others                          ... Petitioners

                          And
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad & another                       ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:             10.01.2023

Submitted for approval.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER


 1   Whether Reporters of Local
     newspapers may be allowed to           Yes/No
     see the Judgments?

 2   Whether the copies of judgment
     may be marked to Law                   Yes/No
     Reporters/Journals

 3   Whether Their
     Ladyship/Lordship wish to see          Yes/No
     the fair copy of the Judgment?



                                           __________________
                                            K.SURENDER, J
                                          2




              * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
                          + CRL.P. No. 2172 of 2021

% Dated 10.01.2023

# Vuda Nagesh & Others                                      ... Petitioners
                                 And
$ The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad & Another                                          ... Respondents


! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. Asad Hussain


^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan,

                                       Addl. Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1 1997 (5) ALD 809


2 MANU/MH/0681/2000


3 MANU/ MP/1263/2020


4 MANU/KA/3604/2022


5 (2012) 10 SCC 303


6   Criminal Appeal No. 1195 of 2018
7   (2014) 9 SCC 772
8 Criminal Appeal Nos.1328-1329 of 2019, dated 04.09.2019


9   Criminal Appeal No. 905 of 2010, dated 04.10.2019
10 (2003) 2 SCC 152
                                 3


             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.2172 OF 2021
ORDER:

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the prosecution for the

offences under Sections 420 IPC and also Section 7 of the

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act').

2. According to the charge sheet filed by the Police

Shantinagar, a written complaint was filed by the Agricultural

Officer stating that the brands namely 'Arunium' and 'Akshi'

varieties of chilli crop seeds are of sub-standard genetic purity.

The said seeds were sold by the petitioner's company, which is

M/s.Monsanto Holdings Private Limited. The farmers were

made to believe through their authorized dealers that the

seeds were of genuine quality and the farmers would be

benefited. However, when the farmers have sowed and

cultivated the said seeds which were of sub-standard quality,

they did not yield any crop and all the farmers have incurred

losses. Aggrieved by the said sub-standard quality of seeds,

the farmers staged dharna on 19.10.2016.

3. On 20.10.2016, a Scientist of Horticulture Department

collected leaf samples from the farmers' fields and sent for

DNA testing analysis for verifying the genetic purity of plants.

During investigation, it was found that 'Arunim' variety chill

crop seeds were received from M/s.Monsanto Holdings Private

Limited and 'Akshi' variety seeds were received from Univeg

Seed Technologies Private Limited.

4. The said samples which were sent for analysis were

received by the DNA Finger Printing Laboratory, Hyderabad

and declared them as sub-standard mentioning 'genetic purity

does not confirm to the prescribed standards of Genetic

Purity'. In the said circumstances, the police conducted

investigation and seized stock registers, invoices, licenses, bills

books etc., from the retailers. Several farmers were also

examined who incurred losses.

5. The Police concluded investigation and arrayed these

petitioners along with seven others as liable for the offence

under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 7 of the Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

entire investigation is void for the reason of the allegations not

attracting any of the offences under Section 420 of IPC or

Section 7 of the Act.

7. In respect of any spurious seeds, the same would fall

within the provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act

of 1966') and any prosecution can be only under the

provisions of the Seeds Act and the Rules made there-under.

The Police have no jurisdiction to conduct investigation.

Several other grounds are also raised questioning the way in

which investigation was conducted. Learned counsel has relied

on the judgments of this Court in Sai Seed Agricultural

Farms v. State of A.P1 in which, the Hon'ble Division Bench

of this Court held that Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is

general Enactment and the Seeds Act 1966 is a Special

Enactment dealing only with quality of seeds for agriculture

purpose so as to ensure proper quality for germination and

consequent yield.

In the said judgment, the Division Bench took notice of

both the Enactments and observed that, without delving into

1997 (5) ALD 809

the facts of the case whether the activity alleged falls within

the ambit of Seeds Act 1966 or Section 3 r/w Section 7 of the

Essential Commodities Act, it was left open to the concerned

Court to decide regarding the prosecution under the

enactment of Seeds (Control) Order 1983 or the Essential

Commodities Act.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the

judgment of High Court of Bombay in the case of Korra

Srinivas Rao and others v. State of Maharashtra2. The High

Court dealt with FIR registered by the police for the offence

under Section 420 of IPC. Criminal complaints were filed

stating that seeds sold by the petitioners therein did not yield

desired results by the farmers as such crime was registered

for the offences under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC and

Sections 6(a) and 7(b) of the Seeds Act. The High Court held

that criminal case cannot be registered by the police and

quashed the same. However, options were left open to

prosecute the petitioners either under the Seeds Act or under

MANU/MH/0681/2000

the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

He also relied upon the judgment of High Court of Madhya

Pradesh in the case of Imran Meman v. State of Madhya

Pradesh3. In the said case, the police seized 720 kgs of seeds

and the petitioner therein failed to produce any licence or any

consent from the government department for engaging any

seed packaging and storing of seeds. In the said

circumstances, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh quashed

the proceedings stating that the provisions of the Essential

Commodities Act are not attracted. Further, none of the

farmers had come forward to state that they were cheated.

For the said reason, FIR registered under Sections 420, 467,

469 and 475 of IPC was quashed. He also relied upon the

judgment in the case of Deepak Gilda v. State of Karnataka

and others4, wherein the Assistant Director of Agriculture

lodged FIR with the police stating that the accused therein

were dealing with Seeds and food grains and sold seeds of

MANU/MP/1263/2020

MANU/KA/3604/2022

green gram to agriculturists. The agriculturists have sowed the

seeds in about 150 acres and even after 90 days, the seeds

have not given any flowers, for which reason, it was inferred

that the seeds were of sub-standard quality and accordingly,

FIR was registered for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.

The Karnataka High Court placing reliance on the judgment of

High Court of Bombay in the case of Korra Srinivas Rao and

others v. State of Maharashtra (supra), held that FIR cannot

be registered under the provisions of IPC. However, action can

be taken under the Seeds Act or the Trade and Merchandise

Marks Act 1958.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the

aforesaid judgments argued that even assuming that the seeds

which were sold were not of the genetic purity as claimed by

the DNA lab, there cannot be any prosecution under Section

420 of IPC or the Essential Commodities Act. However, the

prosecution, if any may be under the Seeds Act. The Seeds Act

in itself is a complete Enactment which prescribes procedure

for dealing with such sub-standard or genetically impure

seeds. The Seed Inspector is the person, according to the Seed

Rules 1968, who can inspect any such complaint of spurious

seeds and take necessary action. The offence by the

petitioners, if any, would be under Section 19 of the Seeds Act.

In the said circumstances, charge sheet has to be quashed.

10. Sri S.Sudershan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submits that there were several hundred farmers who have

been cheated and incurred heavy losses by purchasing the

seeds sold by the petitioners, for the said reason, it is a clear

case of cheating, prosecution cannot be quashed.

11. Alternatively, learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that all the farmers were compensated, for which reason of

settling the issues with the farmers by adequately

compensating them, this Court can take view of the settlement

and quash the proceedings as observed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab5

that offences arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile,

civil, partnership or similar transactions arising out of marital

(2012) 10 Supreme Court 303

relations can be quashed when the disputes are civil in

nature.

12. Perused the record. The crime was registered on the

basis of written complaint filed by the Mandal Agricultural

Officer. During the course of investigation, the samples of

leaves of the crops were taken for analysis and it was found

that there was no genetic purity and according to the analysis

report, it was declared as sub-standard mentioning genetic

purity does not confirm to the prescribed standard of genetic

purity.

13. During the course of investigation, several farmers who

incurred losses using the sub-standard chilli seeds were also

examined. The scientists collected samples and experts are

also examined. Further, to prove that the stocks were received

from the company of the petitioners, stock registers, invoices,

lincences and other bill books were seized from the possession

of A10 to A12, who are the retail sellers of the seeds.

14. To attract an offence of cheating, the essential

ingredients are; i) deliberate misrepresentation of fact; ii)

believing such misrepresentation, a person must have been

induced; iii) such person who has been induced due to the

misrepresentation parts with property.

15. In the present case, the farmers allege that on the basis

of claims made by the company regarding the purity and

standard quality of seeds, seeds were purchased by making

payments. Thereafter, the crop did not yield expected results,

for which reason, there was an enquiry conducted. The

enquiry revealed that the seeds which were purchased by the

farmers through the dealers were of the petitioners' company

and the seed variety did not meet the prescribed standards for

which reason the farmers incurred losses. Prima facie, the

ingredients of Section 420 are made out.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Section

7 of the Essential Commodities Act is also not attracted. Only

the Seeds Act 1966 is made applicable in cases of seeds such

as chilli seeds in the present case.

17. Section 7 of Essential commodities Act penalises any

person contravening any order made under Section 3 of the

Act. According to the Schedule of the Act, chilli seeds also fall

within 'essential commodities'.

18. There is no dispute that Seeds Act 1966, is a special

enactment for regulating the quality of seeds for sale and other

matters which are connected to seeds. In accordance with the

Act, the Seed Inspector and Seed Analyst are appointed by

official notification. Said Seed Inspectors have powers under

Section 14 of the Act to take sample of the seed and the

procedure to be followed by the Seed Inspector is also

enumerated under Section 15 of the Act. On receiving any

sample, the Seed Inspector shall analyse and give a report.

Section 19 of the Seeds Act penalises the contravention of any

provisions of the Act and other acts as stated therein.

19. The Seeds Rules 1968 are framed in exercise of powers

conferred under Section 25 of the Seeds Act 1966. The Rules

specify regarding the functions of the Central Seed Laboratory,

Central Seed Committee and other aspects regarding labelling

etc., in respect of Seeds.

20. Though there is a special enactment dealing with seeds,

the same will not preclude any prosecution, if the acts make

out an offence under any of the provisions of IPC or E.C.Act,

unless specifically barred. In the present case, as discussed

above, the farmers were induced into purchasing the seeds on

the basis of misrepresentation that was made regarding

genetic quality of the seeds and thereby incurred losses. The

said seeds were supplied by the petitioners, which is not in

dispute.

21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

Maharashtra and another v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed

Subhan6, held as follows:

"7. There is no bar to a trial or conviction of an offender under two different enactments, but the bar is only to the punishment of the offender twice for the offence. Where an act or an omission constitutes an offence under two enactments, the offender may be prosecuted and punished under either or both enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. 1. The same set of facts, in conceivable cases, can constitute offences under two different laws. An act or an omission can amount to and constitute an offence under the and at the same time, an offence under any other law. 2 The High Court ought to have taken note of of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which reads as follows:

"Provisions as to offences punishable under two or more enactments - Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of 1 - (1969)3SCR652 -(1988)4SCC655 those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence."

Criminal Appeal No.1195 of 2018

22. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing

with the situation wherein Gutka/Pan Masala were seized and

FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 188, 272,

273 and 328 of IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

though the offences are punishable under Sections 26 and 30

of the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006, the prosecution

under IPC for the said provisions stated above was not

expressly or impliedly barred under the Food and Safety

Standards Act, 2006 and the Rules made there under. For the

said reasons, prosecution under the provisions of IPC was

upheld.

23. In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

was dealing with illegal mining of sand from riverbeds. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though the provisions of

MMDR Act have to be invoked in such cases, police are not

barred from proceeding by criminal prosecution under Section

378 of IPC and observed as follows:

(2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 772

"72. From a close reading of the provisions of the MMDR Act and the offence defined under Section 378 IPC, it is manifest that the ingredients constituting the offence are different. The contravention of terms and conditions of mining lease or doing mining activity in violation of of the Act is an offence punishable under of the MMDR Act, whereas dishonestly removing sand, gravels and other minerals from the river, which is the property of the State, out of State's possession without the consent, constitute an offence of theft. Hence, merely because initiation of proceeding for commission of an offence under the MMDR Act on the basis of complaint cannot and shall not debar the police from taking action against persons for committing theft of sand and minerals in the manner mentioned above by exercising power under of Criminal Procedure and submit a report before the Magistrate for taking cognizance against such person. In other words, in a case where there is a theft of sand and gravels from the Government land, the police can register a case, investigate the same and submit a final report under Section 173 CrPC before a Magistrate having jurisdiction for the purpose of taking cognizance as provided in of Criminal Procedure."

24. In the judgment reported in the case of the State of

Uttar Pradesh v. Aman Mittal and another8, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Sections 3 and 7 of

the Essential Commodities Act in respect of sale of petrol and

diesel found that the prosecution for the offences under

Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC were not covered under the

Essential Commodities Act, as such, the prosecution can be

maintained under relevant provisions of IPC. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court held as under:

Criminal Appeal Nos.1328‐1329 of 2019, dated 04.09.2019.

"35. The scheme of the Act is for the offences for use of weights and measures which are non-standard and for tampering with or altering any standards, secondary standards or working standards of any weight or measure. The act does not foresee any offence relating to cheating as defined in Section 415 of IPC or the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Similarly, an act performed in furtherance of a common intention disclosing an offence under Section 34 is not covered by the provisions of the Act. An offence disclosing a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence which is punishable under Section 120-B IPC is also not an offence under the Act. Since such offences are not punishable under the provisions of the Act, therefore, the prosecution for such offences could be maintained since the trial of such offences is not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act. Similar is the provision in respect of the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC as such offences are not covered by the provisions of the Act."

25. In the case of the State of Arunachal Pradesh v.

Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas and another9, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the offences under

the Motor Vehicles Act, held as follows:

"6. In our view there is no conflict between the provisions of the IPC and the MV Act. Both the statutes operate in entirely different spheres. The offences provided under both the statutes are separate and distinct from each other. The penal consequences provided under both the statutes are also independent and distinct from each other. The ingredients of offences under the both statutes, as discussed earlier, are different, and an offender can be tried and punished independently under both statutes. The principle that the special law should prevail over the general law, has no

Criminal Appeal No.905 of 2010, dated 04.10.2019

application in cases of prosecution of offenders in road accidents under the IPC and M.V.Act.

7. It is pertinent to mention that there is no provision under the M.V.Act which separately deals with offences causing death, or grievous hurt, or hurt by a motor vehicle in cases of motor vehicle accidents. Chapter XIII of the M.V.Act is silent about the act of rash and negligent driving resulting in death, or hurt, or grievous hurt, to persons nor does it prescribe any separate punishment for the same; whereas Sections 279, 304 Part II, 304A, 337 and 338 of the IPC have been specifically framed to deal with such offences."

26. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Hat Singh and

others10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with

Rajasthan Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 held as follows:

"11. The leading Indian authority in which the rule against double jeopardy came to be dealt with and interpreted by reference to of the Constitution is the Constitution Bench decision in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay [AIR 1953 SC 325]. If the offences are distinct, there is no question of the rule as to double jeopardy being extended and applied. In State of Bombay v. S.L.Apte, [AIR 1961 SC 578], the Constitution Bench held that the trial and conviction of the accused u/s 409 did not bar the trial and conviction for an offence u/s 105 of the Insurance Act because the two were distinct offences constituted or made up of different ingredients though the allegations in the two complaints made against the accused may be substantially the same. In Om Prakash Gupta v. State of U.P [AIR 1957 SC 458 and State of M.P. v. Veereshwar Rao Agnihotri [AIR 1957 SC 592], it was held that prosecution and conviction or acquittal u/s 409 of IPC do not debar the accused being tried on a charge u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 because the two offences are not identical in sense, import and content. In Roshan Lal v. State of Punjab [AIR 1965 SC 1413], the accused had caused disappearance of the evidence of two offences u/s 330 and 348 IPC and, therefore, he was alleged to have committed two separate offences u/s 201 . It was held that neither Section 71 IPC nor Section 26 of the General Clauses Act came to the rescue of the accused and the accused was liable to be convicted

(2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 152

for two sets of offences u/s 201 IPC though it would be appropriate not to pass two separate sentences."

27. The Seeds Act 1966 or the Seeds Rules 1968 made there

under, do not in any manner prohibit any prosecution with

regard to 'Seeds' under any other enactment other than Seeds

Act 1966. There is no express or implied provision in Seeds

Act barring prosecution under IPC or Essential Commodities

Act.

28. As already discussed above, on the facts of the present

case, there is a deliberate inducement of the farmers into

purchasing seeds of inferior quality by claiming them to be of

superior quality. There is wrongful loss to the farmers in the

process of relying upon the claims made by the company

regarding the quality of seeds and purchasing them at a price.