Case Note & Summary
The applicants, including the Managing Director of Mahyco Seeds Limited (now Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company Limited), the company itself, and a proprietor of a seed center, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of criminal case S.T.C. No. 1231 of 2007 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Washim. The case was instituted by the State of Maharashtra through the Seed Inspector for alleged contravention of Sections 6(a) and 7(b) of the Seeds Act, 1966 read with Rules 19 and 23(g) of the Seeds Rules, 1968. The allegation was that sunflower seeds of variety MSFH8, sampled on 19/9/2006, were found to have only 9% germination capacity as against the represented 70% on the label. The seeds were manufactured on 24/5/2006 and had a shelf life expiry date of 19/11/2006. However, the prosecution was filed on 7/4/2007, after the expiry of the shelf life. The applicants contended that this delay violated their valuable right under Section 16(3) of the Seeds Act to get the sample tested from the Central Seed Laboratory, as the sample could no longer be tested due to the expiry of its validity. The State argued that the delay was due to administrative reasons and should not benefit the applicants. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the right under Section 16(3) is a valuable right and its infringement due to the delay in filing the prosecution after the expiry of the shelf life renders the prosecution unsustainable. The court quashed the criminal case and all proceedings arising therefrom.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC - Seeds Act, 1966 - Right to get sample tested from Central Seed Laboratory - The applicants sought quashing of criminal case S.T.C. No. 1231 of 2007 on the ground that their right under Section 16(3) of the Seeds Act, 1966 to get the sample tested from the Central Seed Laboratory was violated as the prosecution was filed after the expiry of the shelf life of the seeds. The court held that the right under Section 16(3) is a valuable right and its infringement vitiates the prosecution. (Paras 3-8) B) Seeds Act - Right to Get Sample Tested - Section 16(3) Seeds Act, 1966 - Shelf Life of Seeds - The seeds were manufactured on 24/5/2006 with expiry on 19/11/2006, but the prosecution was filed on 7/4/2007. The court held that the delay in filing the prosecution after the expiry of the shelf life deprived the applicants of their right to have the sample tested by the Central Seed Laboratory, rendering the prosecution unsustainable. (Paras 4-8) C) Criminal Procedure - Delay in Prosecution - Administrative Reasons - The State argued that the delay was due to administrative reasons. The court held that administrative delay cannot be a ground to deprive the accused of a valuable statutory right under Section 16(3) of the Seeds Act, 1966. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution of the applicants under the Seeds Act, 1966 and Seeds Rules, 1968 is liable to be quashed on the ground that the applicants' right under Section 16(3) of the Seeds Act to get the sample tested from the Central Seed Laboratory was violated due to the prosecution being filed after the expiry of the shelf life of the seeds.
Final Decision
The criminal application is allowed. Criminal case S.T.C. No. 1231 of 2007 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Washim and all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Right to get sample tested from Central Seed Laboratory under Section 16(3) Seeds Act
- 1966 is a valuable right
- Prosecution filed after expiry of shelf life of seeds violates this right
- Delay due to administrative reasons does not justify infringement of statutory right
