Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Vishwas Pandhari Khuje, Rajendra Bhikanrao Deshmukh, and Ramdas Dnyandev Kadam, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the summonses issued against them by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jafrabad, in S.T.C. No. 192/2011. The case arose from a visit by the Seed Inspector, Gaikwad Rajaratna Pralhadrao, to Shrikant Krushi Seva Kendra, Mahora, on 29 October 2010. The Seed Inspector drew a sample of mustard seeds (Mhyco Bold) from the stock of the third petitioner, who is the proprietor of the shop. The sample was sent for analysis, and based on the report, a complaint was filed under Section 19(a)(i) read with Section 7(b) of the Seeds Act, 1966, and Rules 2(g), 7, and 10 of the Seeds Rules, 1968. The petitioners sought quashing of the summonses and the entire proceedings on the ground that the mandatory procedure under Rule 7(1) of the Seeds Rules, 1968 was not followed. Rule 7(1) requires the Seed Inspector to give notice to the person from whom the sample is taken before drawing the sample. The court examined the complaint and found that there was no mention of any notice being given to the accused before drawing the sample. The court held that the requirement of notice under Rule 7(1) is mandatory and its non-compliance renders the prosecution invalid. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the summonses, and dismissed the complaint. The court also set aside the order issuing process against the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Summons - Seeds Act, 1966 - Section 19(a)(i) read with Section 7(b) - Seeds Rules, 1968 - Rule 7(1) - Mandatory Notice - The Seed Inspector failed to give notice to the accused before drawing the sample of mustard seeds, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 7(1) of the Seeds Rules, 1968. The court held that non-compliance with this mandatory procedure vitiates the entire prosecution. The summonses and the criminal proceedings in S.T.C. No. 192/2011 were quashed. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the summonses issued against the petitioners and the prosecution under the Seeds Act, 1966 and Seeds Rules, 1968 are liable to be quashed for non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, specifically the failure to give notice under Rule 7(1) of the Seeds Rules, 1968 before drawing the sample.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the summonses issued against the petitioners, and quashed the criminal proceedings in S.T.C. No. 192/2011 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jafrabad. The order issuing process against the petitioners was set aside.
Law Points
- Mandatory procedure under Seeds Rules
- 1968
- Notice under Rule 7(1) before drawing sample
- Quashing of criminal proceedings for non-compliance
- Seeds Act
- 1966 Section 19(a)(i) read with Section 7(b)
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (03) 4
Criminal Writ Petition No. 781 of 2014
Mr. Shirish Gupte, Sr. Counsel i/b Mr. N.K. Choudhari for Petitioners; Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.P.P. for Respondent – State
Vishwas S/o Pandhari Khuje, Rajendra S/o Bhikanrao Deshmukh, Ramdas S/o Dnyandev Kadam
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition challenging summonses and seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under the Seeds Act, 1966.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of summonses issued against them and quashing of S.T.C. No. 192/2011 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jafrabad.
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that the Seed Inspector failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under Rule 7(1) of the Seeds Rules, 1968 by not giving notice before drawing the sample.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jafrabad had issued summonses against the petitioners in S.T.C. No. 192/2011.
Issues
Whether the failure to give notice under Rule 7(1) of the Seeds Rules, 1968 before drawing the sample vitiates the prosecution?
Whether the summonses and the criminal proceedings under the Seeds Act, 1966 are liable to be quashed for non-compliance with mandatory procedure?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Seed Inspector did not give any notice to the accused before drawing the sample, which is mandatory under Rule 7(1) of the Seeds Rules, 1968, and therefore the entire prosecution is invalid.
Respondent State argued that the procedure was followed, but the court found no mention of notice in the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
The requirement of giving notice under Rule 7(1) of the Seeds Rules, 1968 before drawing a sample is mandatory. Non-compliance with this mandatory procedure renders the prosecution invalid and liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present Writ Petition, the petitioners are challenging the summonses as accused, issued against them by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jafrabad in S.T.C. No. 192/2011.
The Seed Inspector visited Shrikant Krushi Seva Kendra, Mahora, Tq. Jafrabad, Dist. Jalna on 29/10/2010.
The court found that there is no mention of any notice being given to the accused before drawing the sample, which is mandatory under Rule 7(1) of the Seeds Rules, 1968.
Procedural History
The Seed Inspector filed a complaint under the Seeds Act, 1966 and Seeds Rules, 1968 against the petitioners. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jafrabad issued summonses to the petitioners in S.T.C. No. 192/2011. The petitioners then filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 781 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the summonses and seeking quashing of the proceedings. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.
Acts & Sections
- Seeds Act, 1966: 19(a)(i), 7(b)
- Seeds Rules, 1968: 2(g), 7, 10
