CRLP/693/2022 of MAHENDRA AGRO GENERICS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 31 December 2024

ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[1] has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.283 of 2021 on the file of Thimmapuram Police Station, East Godavari for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860[2] and Section 19(a) of the Seeds Act, 1966[3].

2. Heard Sri D.V.Sivadarshan, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Respondents have not followed the procedure contemplated under Sections 12 and 23 of Seeds Act. Learned counsel would further submit that no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners to attract the offences alleged against them. It is submitted that the Petitioners filed W.P.No.25580 of 2021 before this Court, wherein, an interim order dated 30.11.2021 has also been passed directing the Agricultural Authorities not to entertain, register any false case without following the procedure contemplated under the Seeds Act, pending disposal of the above writ petition. However, the present crime has been registered in violation of the said orders.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that having received complaints from the farmers, Respondent No.3 lodged the present complaint. It is further submitted that the scientists visited and found that the alleged seeds are not upto the mark due to which the land was spoiled. Learned 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’

2 for short ‘IPC’

3 for short ‘the Act’

Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that, at the preliminary stage itself, they obtained stay. In view of the specific allegations against the Petitioners, the truth or otherwise of the said allegations must be revealed during investigation. At this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that, the present complaint has been lodged without giving any notice to the Petitioners, as directed by 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 Raju Ramprasad & Others vs. State of A.P., and Others[4].

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 the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.283 of 2021 on the file of Thimmapuram Police Station, East Godavari?

Determination by the Court

7. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that 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 of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial court or court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

8. As seen from the record, the Mandal Agricultural Officer submitted a report to the SHO, Thimmapuram Police Station, East Godavari District on 20.10.2021, based on the report of farmers of Panduru Village, Kakinada Rural who stated that they have cultivated the land with Amulya paddy variety, due to which the variety shows panicle initiation just after 40-45 days of sowing and also shows early maturity, which may result in yield reduction. As instructed by the Joint Director of Agriculture, on 30.09.2021 Plant Breeders from Marteru Paddy Research Centre and Scientists from Yeruvaka and Agriculture Department Staff has visited the paddy fields in which Amulya paddy variety seeds were sown and on observation the scientists concluded improper vegetative growth, low tiller count and early flowering in the fields. 9. At this juncture, it is essential to chalk out the necessary provisions under the Seeds Act and Rules. With a view to increase the agricultural production in the country, it was felt necessary to regulate the quality of certain seeds to be sold for the purpose of agriculture and horticulture and to achieve this object, the Legislature enacted the Seeds Act, 1966. Certain methods and procedures are contemplated under the Act to achieve its object. The Seeds Rules, 1968 were formulated with the procedure that is to be followed in addition to the provisions of the Act. Rule 23-A of 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 is lodged 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 Seed Inspector shall take in his possession the marks or labels, the seed containers and a sample of unused seeds to the extent possible from the complaint for establishing the source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the causes of the failure of his crop by sending samples of the lot to the Seed Analyst for detailed 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 conclusion that the failure of the crop is due to the quality of seeds supplied to the farmer being less than the minimum standards notified by the Central Government, he shall launch proceedings against the supplier for contravention of the provisions of the Act or these rules."

10. A bare perusal of the above Rule makes it clear that if a complaint is lodged by a farmer in writing about failure of the crop due to defective quality of seeds, the Seed Inspector has to proceed to investigate into the case by drawing samples 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 such report, 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. It is not the case where the Mandal Agricultural Officer forwarded the complaint, which was received from the farmers, to the Police. In the instant case, 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 the Police. 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 offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Sections 19(a) of the Seeds Act. When admittedly, several farmers have filed complaints complaining that they have lost crop due to the defective seeds that were purchased from the Petitioners, it is a case under the special enactment and the procedure as contemplated under Rule 23-A of the Rules should have been followed. No such procedure was followed by the informant for the reasons best known to him. If a statute prescribes a particular process or method, the same must be followed, in a strict sense. No choice vests with the authorities to jumble the procedures in their own order, unless so permitted.

12. Even if the informant lodged first information for contravention of the provisions of the Act which is punishable under Section 19 of the Act, the offence is non-cognizable one. Under such circumstances, Station House Officer should not have registered the crime and proceeded with the investigation. Procedure as contemplated under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. has to be followed.

13. The present case has been lodged against the Petitioners based on the complaints made by the farmers and the tests conducted by the Agricultural Scientists. Respondents have not sent the seeds for the analysis as per the procedure prescribed. It is the contention of the Petitioners that under Section 15 of the Seeds Act, the concerned authority has to issue notice to the Petitioners and the action of the Agricultural Authorities in appointing the scientists to collect the samples of crop, without giving any notice, would result in failure of statutory process. At this stage, for better understanding, Section

15(1) and (2) of the Seeds Act is extracted hereunder:

“15. Procedure to be followed by Seed Inspectors:

(1) Whenever a Seed Inspector intends to take sample of any seed of any notified kind or variety for analysis, he shall- (a) give notice in writing, then and there, of such intention to the person from whom he intends to take sample; (b) except in special cases provided by rules made under this Act, take three representative samples in the prescribed manner and mark and seal or fasten up each sample in such manner as its nature permits.

(2) When samples of any seed of any notified kind or variety are taken under sub-section (1), the Seed Inspector shall- (a) deliver one sample to the person from whom it has been taken; (b) send in the prescribed manner another sample for analysis to the Seed Analyst for the area within which such sample has been taken; and

(c) retain the remaining sample in the prescribed manner for production in case any legal proceedings are taken or for analysis by the Central Seed Laboratory under sub-section (2) of section 16, as the case may be.”

14. In the instant case, as could be seen from the material on record, based on the complaint given by the farmers that the paddy variety supplied by the Petitioners is 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 premises of the Petitioners. Furthermore, though this Court in W.P.No.25580 of 2021 vide Order dated 11.02.2022 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 Petitioners 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.

15. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings launched against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, without following the procedure contemplated under the special enactment, are not maintainable and the same are liable to be quashed.

16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.283 of 2021 on the file of Thimmapuram Police Station, East Godavari for the offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 19(a) of the Seeds Act, 1966. However, Respondent No.3/ Complainant is at liberty to work out their remedies by following due procedure contemplated under the Seeds Act and the Rules made thereunder.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________________________

Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 31.12.2024 Dinesh THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Crl.P.No.693 of 2022Dt.31.12.2024

Dinesh