Telangana High Court
Mr. J Srikanth Reddy vs The State Of Telangana, on 13 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.14834 of 2025
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner -
accused No.3 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.624
of 2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of
First Class at Peddapalli. The offences alleged against the petitioner
are under Sections 7(b) read with Section 19 of the Seeds Act, 1966
and sub clause (c) of the Clause 13 of Seeds (Control) Order (for
short 'the Act').
2. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 - State.
3. The case of the 2nd respondent is that on 29.07.2005, an
inspection was conducted in the premises of M/s. Sri Laxmi
Fertilisers and General Merchants at Yellandu and found Maize
seeds 'Kaveri' 218. The samples were drawn by the officer and copy
of Form-VIII was served to accused No.1 and acknowledgment was
taken.while drawing the samples and same were sent to the analyst
for analysis and report. On 23.08.2005 the analyst report was
received from the Assistant Director of Agriculture (STL),
ETD, J
Crlp_14837_2025
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. On 22.10.2005 a show cause notice
was issued by the complainant intimating that the seeds containing
71% germination which is substandard, however the percentage
should be 90% and above. To the said show cause notice, an
explanation was given on 03.11.2005 by the Marketing Coordinator
to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Khammam by enclosing a quality
control report along with the explanation by stating that they have
undertaken testing of the seeds before selling and the tests of their
Quality Control Lab revealed that the germination percentage is
more than 90%.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged on the ground
that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of sending the
samples for retesting to the Central Laboratory, since the complaint
was filed after the expiry date. The expiry date was in the month of
February, 2006. Though the complaint was filed on 15.02.2006, the
cognizance was takenon 05.04.2006, thereafter summons were
issued. The other ground urged by the learned counsel is that the
petitioner cannot be vicariously liable, unless the company is arrayed
as an accused. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and
ETD, J
Crlp_14837_2025
Tours Private Limited1. To substantiate his argument that the
petitioner was denied an opportunity of retesting, he also relied on
the judgment of this Court in M/s.Matha Venkateswara Rao and
others v. State2 .
5. In accordance with Section 16(2) of the Act, after institution of a
prosecution under the Act, the accused on payment of prescribed
fee before the concerned Court for sending the samples to the
Central Seed Laboratory.
6. In the present case, admittedly the summons were issued after
cognizance was taken on 05.04.2006, whereas the expiry date of the
seeds was in the month of February, 2006. It is apparent that the
right to send the samples to the Central Laboratory was denied on
account of delay in filing the 1 (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 661
2complaint. Admittedly, Kaveri Seed Company Pvt.Ltd is not made
as an accused in the present case.
7. Under Section 21 of the Act, when an offence is committed by a
company, every person who at the time of offence was committed
was in charge of, would be vicariously liable. In Aneeta Hada (cited
supra 1) case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless the
company is made as an accused, the persons who are responsible
ETD, J
Crlp_14837_2025
for day to day affairs cannot be made accused. The liability on the
persons running the company is vicarious and unless the company is
made as an accused, the liability cannot be fastened on to the
persons who are responsible for running the company. On both
grounds, the accused being denied an opportunity of doing retesting
of seeds and also for not arraying the company as an accused, the
petition succeeds.
8. In view of the above discussion, the continuation of proceedings
against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of Court.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings
against petitioner - accused No.3 in C.C.No.381 of 2015 on the file
of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam are hereby
quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Dt.13.11.2025
ggd
ETD, J
Crlp_14837_2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.14837 of 2025
Dated:13.11.2025
ggd
