CRLP/773/2022 of YERRAMREDDY MAHENDAR REDDY Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 31 December 2024

ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482of Code of Criminal[Procedure,]1973^ has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No. 1,seekingto quash theproceedings against himin Crime No.415 of 2021on the file of Peddapuram Police Station, East Godavari for the offences under Sections 417, 420 and 272read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860^.

2. HeardSriD.V.Sivadarshan,learnedcounselforthePetitionerandMs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondents.Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondents.

3. Learned counsel for thePetitioner would submit that the Respondentshave not followed the procedure contemplated under Sections 12 and 23ofSeeds Act.Learned counsel would further submit that no prima facie caseismade out against the Petitioner to attract the offences alleged against him.It issubmitted that thePetitionerfiled W.P.No.25580of 2021beforethis Court,wherein, an interim order dated 30.11.2021 has also been passed directing theAgricultural Authorities not to entertain, register any false case without followingthe procedure contemplated under the Seeds Act, pending disposal of the abovewrit petition.However, the present crime has been registered in violation of thesaid orders.have not followed the procedure contemplated under Sections 12 and 23ofSeeds Act.Learned counsel would further submit that no prima facie caseismade out against the Petitioner to attract the offences alleged against him.It issubmitted that thePetitionerfiled W.P.No.25580of 2021beforethis Court,wherein, an interim order dated 30.11.2021 has also been passed directing theAgricultural Authorities not to entertain, register any false case without followingthe procedure contemplated under the Seeds Act, pending disposal of the abovewrit petition.However, the present crime has been registered in violation of thesaid orders.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that having receivedcomplaints from the farmers. Respondent No.3 lodged the present complaint.Itis further submitted that the scientists visited and found that the alleged seedsare not upto the mark due to which the land was spoiled.Learned AssistantPublic Prosecutor would submit that, at the preliminary stage itself, they obtainedstay.In view of the specific allegations against thePetitioner,the truthorotherwise of the said allegations must be revealed during investigation.At thiscomplaints from the farmers. Respondent No.3 lodged the present complaint.Itis further submitted that the scientists visited and found that the alleged seedsare not upto the mark due to which the land was spoiled.Learned AssistantPublic Prosecutor would submit that, at the preliminary stage itself, they obtainedstay.In view of the specific allegations against thePetitioner,the truthorotherwise of the said allegations must be revealed during investigation.At thisstage, the proceedings against the Petitioner cannot be quashed.Hence, prayedto dismiss the petition.to dismiss the petition.

Issues

5. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, the presentcomplaint has been lodged without giving any notice to the Petitioner, as directedby this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.25580 of 2021.In support[of][ his][ contentions]learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Yallam RajuRamprasad & Others vs. State of A.P., and Others^complaint has been lodged without giving any notice to the Petitioner, as directedby this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.25580 of 2021.In support[of][ his][ contentions]learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Yallam RajuRamprasad & Others vs. State of A.P., and Others^

Point for determination

6. Now the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment[of][ the]proceedings against thePetitioner/ Accused No.1inCrimeNo. 415 of 2021 on the file of Peddapuram Police Station,[East]Godavari?proceedings against thePetitioner/ Accused No.1inCrimeNo. 415 of 2021 on the file of Peddapuram Police Station,[East]Godavari?

Determination by the Court

7. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages thatinherent powers of the High Court are not limited or[affected][ so][ as][ to][ make]orders as may be necessary: (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or,(ii)to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends ofjustice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trialcourt or court of appeal or a court of revision.It must exercise its powers to doreal and substantial justice, depending on the facts[and][ circumstances]of thecase. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of processoflaworglaringinjustice,whichareagainst soundprinciplesof criminaljurisprudence.inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or[affected][ so][ as][ to][ make]orders as may be necessary: (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or,(ii)to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends ofjustice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trialcourt or court of appeal or a court of revision.It must exercise its powers to doreal and substantial justice, depending on the facts[and][ circumstances]of thecase. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of processoflaworglaringinjustice,whichareagainst soundprinciplesof criminaljurisprudence.

8. As seen from the record, the Mandal Agricultural Officer submitted a reportto the SHO, Police Station, East Godavari District[on][ 20.10.2021,][ based][ on][ the]to the SHO, Police Station, East Godavari District[on][ 20.10.2021,][ based][ on][ the]

report of farmers of Divili, Peddapuram,Pulimeru, Chedalavada, Vadlamuru,Sirivada,Gudivada, Anuru and Gorinta Villages who statedthat they havecultivated the land with Amulya paddy variety, due to which the variety showspanicle initiation just after 40-45 days of sowing and also shows early maturity,which mayresultinyieldreduction. Asinstructed by the Joint Director ofAgriculture, on 30.09.2021 Plant Breeders from Marteru Paddy Research Centreand Scientists from Yeruvaka and Agriculture Department Staff has visited thepaddy fields in which Amulya paddy variety seeds were sown and on observationthe scientists concluded improper vegetative growth, low tiller count and earlyflowering in the fields. Though the ingredients of the present complaint reveal theoffence under the Seeds Act, the Police registered the case for the offencesSections 417, 420 and 272 IPC only.

9. With a view to increase the agricultural production in the country,it was feltnecessary to regulate the quality of certain seeds to be sold for the purpose ofagriculture and horticulture and to achieve this object, the Legislature enacted theSeeds Act, 1966. Certain methods and procedures are contemplated under theAct to achieveits object.The Seeds Rules, 1968 were formulated with theprocedure that is to be followed in addition to the provisions of the Act. Rule 23-Aof the Rules deals with action to be taken by the Seed Inspector if a complaint isnecessary to regulate the quality of certain seeds to be sold for the purpose ofagriculture and horticulture and to achieve this object, the Legislature enacted theSeeds Act, 1966. Certain methods and procedures are contemplated under theAct to achieveits object.The Seeds Rules, 1968 were formulated with theprocedure that is to be followed in addition to the provisions of the Act. Rule 23-Aof the Rules deals with action to be taken by the Seed Inspector if a complaint is lodged with him which reads as under:

"23A. Action to be taken by the Seed Inspector if a complaint islodged with him.-

(1) If farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that[the]failure of the crop is due to the defective quality[of][ seeds]of any notified kind or variety supplied to him, the SeedInspectorshall takeinhis possessionthe marksorlabels, the seed containers and a sample of unusedfailure of the crop is due to the defective quality[of][ seeds]of any notified kind or variety supplied to him, the SeedInspectorshall takeinhis possessionthe marksorlabels, the seed containers and a sample of unused seedstotheextentpossiblefromthecomplaintforestablishing the source of supplyof seeds andshallinvestigatethe causesof thefailureofhiscrop bysendingsamplesof thelottothe SeedAnalystfordetailed analysis at the State Seed Testing Laboratory.He shall thereupon submit the report of his findings[as]soon as possible to the competent authority.(2) In case, the Seed Inspector comes to the conclusionthat the failure of the crop is due to the quality[of][ seeds]suppliedto the farmer beingless than the minimumstandards notified by the Central Government, he shalllaunchproceedingsagainstthesupplierforcontravention of the provisions of the Act or these[rules."]

10. A bare perusal of the above Rule makesit clear thatif a complaintislodged by a farmer in writing about failure of the crop due to defective quality ofseeds, the Seed Inspector has to proceed to investigate into the case by drawingsamples from the lot of the seeds and by sending the same[ to][ the] Seeds[ Analyst]for detailed analysis at the State Seeds Testing Laboratory. Upon receipt of suchreport,if the Seeds Inspector forms an opinion that[failure][ of][ the][ crop][ is] due[ to]the quality of seeds supplied to the farmers being[substandard,][ then][ he][ shall]launch prosecution against the supplier for such contravention[of][ the][ Act.]lodged by a farmer in writing about failure of the crop due to defective quality ofseeds, the Seed Inspector has to proceed to investigate into the case by drawingsamples from the lot of the seeds and by sending the same[ to][ the] Seeds[ Analyst]for detailed analysis at the State Seeds Testing Laboratory. Upon receipt of suchreport,if the Seeds Inspector forms an opinion that[failure][ of][ the][ crop][ is] due[ to]the quality of seeds supplied to the farmers being[substandard,][ then][ he][ shall]launch prosecution against the supplier for such contravention[of][ the][ Act.]

11. Itis not the case where the Mandal Agricultural Officer[forwarded]thecomplaint, which was received from the farmers, to[the]Police.In the instantcase, on receipt of the complaints from the farmers,[and][ based][ on][ the][ inspection]and report of the scientists, the Mandal Agricultural Officer lodged a report to thePolice. Admittedly, the procedure contemplated under[Rule][ 23-A][ of][ the][ Rules has]not been followed in the present case. The complainant[simply][ filed][ a][ complaint]with the police alleging commission of the alleged[offences.][ When][ admittedly,]several farmers have filed complaints complaining that they have lost crop due to the defective seeds that were purchased from the Petitioner,it is a case underthe special enactment and the procedure as contemplated under Rule 23-A of theRules should have been followed. No such procedure was followed by theinformant for the reasons best known to him. Further, though the nature of theoffence comes under the ambit of Seeds Act, the case has not been registeredfor any offence under the said Act and was registered forI PC offences only. If astatute prescribes a particular process or method, the same must be followed, ina strict sense. No choice vests with the authorities to jumble the procedures intheir own order, unless so permitted. Under such circumstances. Station HouseOfficershouldnothaveregisteredthecrimeandproceededwiththeinvestigation.

12. The present case has been lodged against the Petitioner based on thecomplaints made by the farmers and the tests conducted by the AgriculturalScientists.Respondents have not sent the seeds for the analysisas per theprocedure prescribed.It is the contention of the Petitioner that under Section15of the Seeds Act, the concerned authority has to issue notice to the Petitionerand the action of the Agricultural Authorities in appointing the scientists to collectthe samples of crop, without giving any notice, would result in failure of statutoryprocess.At this stage, for better understanding, Section 15(1) and (2) of theSeeds Act is extracted hereunder:complaints made by the farmers and the tests conducted by the AgriculturalScientists.Respondents have not sent the seeds for the analysisas per theprocedure prescribed.It is the contention of the Petitioner that under Section15of the Seeds Act, the concerned authority has to issue notice to the Petitionerand the action of the Agricultural Authorities in appointing the scientists to collectthe samples of crop, without giving any notice, would result in failure of statutoryprocess.At this stage, for better understanding, Section 15(1) and (2) of theSeeds Act is extracted hereunder:

^5.Procedure to be followed by Seed Inspectors:

(1) Whenever a Seed Inspector intends to take sample of anyseed of any notified kind or variety for analysis,[he][ shall-]

(a) give noticeinwriting,then and there,of suchintention to the person from whom he intends to takesample;

13.

(b) except in special cases provided by rules madeunder this Act, take three representative samples in[the]prescribed manner and mark and seal or fasten upeach sample in such manner as its nature permits.

(2) When samples of any seed of any notified kind or[variety]aretaken under sub-section (1), the Seed Inspector shalf- (a) deliver one sample to the person from whom it hasbeen taken; (b) send in the prescribed manner another sample foranalysis to the Seed Analyst for the area within whichsuch sample has been taken; and

(c) retainthe remaining sampleinthe prescribedmanner for production in case any legal proceedingsaretakenorforanalysisbytheCentralSeedLaboratory under sub-section (2) of section 16, as[the]case may be. ’’

In the instant case, as could be seen from the material[on][ record,]based

onthe complaint given by the farmers that the paddy variety[supplied][ by][ the]Petitioneris not up to the mark, a committee consisting[of][ Scientists,][ Seed]Inspectors and Officials from the Agriculture Department[collected][ the][ samples]from the fields of the farmers but not from the premisesof thePetitioner.Furthermore, though this Courtin W.P.No.25580 of 2021vide Order dated11.02.2022 directed the Respondents to follow the procedure[contemplated]under Section 15 of the Seeds Act and the Rules made[thereunder][ in][ case][ of]taking any penal action against the Petitioner and[the][ was][ reiterated][ by][ the]Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.593[of][ 2022][ vide][ oral][ judgment]dated 20.07.2022,in violation of the same, the present[complaint][ has][ been]lodged.Petitioneris not up to the mark, a committee consisting[of][ Scientists,][ Seed]Inspectors and Officials from the Agriculture Department[collected][ the][ samples]from the fields of the farmers but not from the premisesof thePetitioner.Furthermore, though this Courtin W.P.No.25580 of 2021vide Order dated11.02.2022 directed the Respondents to follow the procedure[contemplated]under Section 15 of the Seeds Act and the Rules made[thereunder][ in][ case][ of]taking any penal action against the Petitioner and[the][ was][ reiterated][ by][ the]Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.593[of][ 2022][ vide][ oral][ judgment]dated 20.07.2022,in violation of the same, the present[complaint][ has][ been]lodged.

14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the[view][ that][ no prime]facie case is made out against the Petitioner for the[offences][ under][ Sections][ 417,]420and272IPCandthecriminalproceedingslaunchedagainstthe Petitioner/Accused No.1, without following the procedure cohtemplatedunder thespecial enactment, are not maintainable and thesame are liable to be quashed.

15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedingsagainstPetitioner/AccusedNo.1in Crime No.415of2021onthefileofPeddapuram Police Station, East Godavari for the offencesunder Sections 417,420 and 272 read with 34 IPC. However, Respondent No.3/Complainant is atliberty to work out their remedies by following due procedurecontemplated underthe Seeds Act and the Rules made thereunder.againstPetitioner/AccusedNo.1in Crime No.415of2021onthefileofPeddapuram Police Station, East Godavari for the offencesunder Sections 417,420 and 272 read with 34 IPC. However, Respondent No.3/Complainant is atliberty to work out their remedies by following due procedurecontemplated underthe Seeds Act and the Rules made thereunder.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJUassistant registrar//TRUE COPY//To,SECTION OFFICER1. The Joint Director Agriculture, Kakinada,East Godavari District.1. The Joint Director Agriculture, Kakinada,East Godavari District.2. The Mandal Agriculture Officer,Peddapuram Mandalam, East GodavariPeddapuram Mandalam, East GodavariDistrict.3. The Station House Officer,Pedhapuram Police Statioh, East GodavariPedhapuram Police Statioh, East GodavariDistrict.4. One CC to Sri D SSivadarshan Advocate [OPUC]Sivadarshan Advocate [OPUC]5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra PradeshHigh Court of Andhra PradeshAmaravati (OUT).

6. Three CD copies.Trt

sree

HIGH COURT

DATED:31/12/2024

ORDERCRLP.No.773 of 2022

*13 MAR 2025|^ . Current decuon ^^^s£^SPATCH^«<^

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION