Harish Reddy Vs. Assistant Director of Agriculture-cum-seed Inspector, Muddebehal - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 30, 39-a(2) & 121 & karnataka co-operative societies rules, 1960, rule 14: [d.v. shylendra kumar, j] society managed by administrator appointed by superseding committee appointment of returning officer to hold election to constitute new committee for held, where society has been exempted from electing now committee, as provided in section 21 of the act, in view of its precarious financial condition, and has been under management of administrator for over seven years after suppression of elected committee, appointment of returning officer when administrator has not fixed any date for holding election is futile exercise on part of registrar . returning officer so appointed cannot initiate action to hold election and has to remain idle. proper procedure is to fix date of election and then to appoint returning officer. order1. all these petitions filed by the different petitioners pertain to the prosecution of the petitioners for committing an offence punishable under section 19-a of the seeds act, 1966 by assistant director of agriculture and seed inspector. the respondent checked the seeds which were in the possession of the petitioners. after taking samples sent one of the samples to the seed analyst for examination. after receipt of the analyst's report, filed private complaint before the respective judicial magistrates first class. after taking cognizance, the magistrates concerned have issued summons to the accused/petitioners who have appeared before the trial court and proceedings are pending making a little progress in the matter. the petitioners in the present petition have now challenged the very institution and continuation of the proceedings as being illegal.2. the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of section 16 have not been complied with. for convenient reference, section 16 of the act is reproduced hereunder:'section 16. report of seed analyst.--(1) the seed analyst shall, as soon as may be after the receipt of the sample under sub-section (2) of section 15, analyse the sample at the state seed laboratory and deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, one copy of the report of the result of the analysis to the seed inspector and another copy thereof to the person from whom sample has been taken. (2) after the institution of a prosecution under this act, the accused vendor or complainant may, on payment of the prescribed fee make an application to the court for sending any of the samples mentioned in clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 15 to the central seed laboratory for its report and on receipt of the application, the court shall first ascertain that the mark and the seal or fastening as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 15 are intact and may then despatch the sample under its own seal to the central seed laboratory which shall thereupon send its report to the court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the sample, specifying the result of the analysis. (3) the report sent to the central seed report under sub-section (2) shall supersede the report given by the seed analyst under sub-section (1). (4) where the report sent by central seed report under sub-section (2) is produced in any proceedings under section 19, it shall not be necessary in such proceedings to produce any sample or part thereof taken for analysis'. 3. under the provisions of section 15 of the seeds act when the seed inspector takes the samples for analysis, he has to give notice in writing to the person from whom he is taking sample and shall take three representative samples in the prescribed manner and deliver one of the samples so taken to the custody of the person from whom the samples are taken, send one sample to the seed analyst and to retain one sample with him for launching the prosecution. under section 16 of the seeds act, after analysis the analyst has to submit a report and should also mark a copy of the report to the person from whom sample was taken. after launching of the prosecution, the accused vendor or the complainant if they have any objection to the report of seed analyst, they can apply to the court by paying prescribed fee for sending the sample seeds for examination by the central seed laboratory, the provisions of sections 15 and 16 are mandatory in character.4. in the instant case, although the seed analyst has not sent the report directly to the persons from whom the sample was seized. but nonetheless, they were furnished with the copy of the reports before launching of the prosecution by the seed inspector.5. it is the contention of the petitioners that there is breach of compliance of the mandatory requisites of section 16 of the act and on going through the dates of filing of the private complaint in each case, it is apparent that the complaints were filed beyond the period of 11 months from the date of the report of the analyst. it was strenuously contended by the counsel for the petitioners that inordinate delay in launching of the prosecution has resulted in dissipation of the material evidence for the defence of the accused. had the complaint, been lodged at the earliest before the expiry of the life of the seed the accused could have availed the benefit of getting the second examination from the central seed laboratory which is now lost on account of the delayed prosecution. in this regard, indian minimum seed certification standards manual has been produced and at page no. 10 it is mentioned thus:'validity period of the certificate.--the validity period was 9 months from the date of test at the time of initial certification. the validity period could be further extended for six months provided on retesting seed conforms to the prescribed standards in respect of physical purely, germination and insect damage for all seeds except vegetatively propagating material for which lot shall be re-examined that seed standards specified for in respect of crop. a seed lot will be eligible for extension of the validity period as long as it conforms to the prescribed standards. the procedure for extension of the validity period is given in appendix ix'.6. therefore, the scientific opinion on the subject indicates that normal lifespan of the seed to have its effective reproductive capacity is 9 months and sometimes the quality of the seed may continue to be unaffected for a period of 6 more months. but however, after completion of 9 months, a second check is required to find out whether the quality of the seed remains intact or dissipated. therefore, in the present cases, it is obvious that from the date of report to the date of complaint, the prosecution are launched beyond 11 months and in some cases it is 15 months and in one case it is 17 months. therefore, whatever, the benefit the accused have to get by way of examination by the central seed laboratory is once and for all lost. besides, the limitation for launching the prosecution had also expired since the offence is punishable with only fine. within six months from the date of detection of the offence, the prosecution should be launched. but in all these cases, from the date of analyst report, the prosecution is launched beyond a period of 6 months. therefore, all the impugned proceedings are evidently visited by illegality.7. accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the proceedings are set aside.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. All these petitions filed by the different petitioners pertain to the prosecution of the petitioners for committing an offence punishable under Section 19-A of the Seeds Act, 1966 by Assistant Director of Agriculture and Seed Inspector. The respondent checked the seeds which were in the possession of the petitioners. After taking samples sent one of the samples to the Seed Analyst for examination. After receipt of the Analyst's report, filed private complaint before the respective Judicial Magistrates First Class. After taking cognizance, the Magistrates concerned have issued summons to the accused/petitioners who have appeared before the Trial Court and proceedings are pending making a little progress in the matter. The petitioners in the present petition have now challenged the very institution and continuation of the proceedings as being illegal.

2. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of Section 16 have not been complied with. For convenient reference, Section 16 of the Act is reproduced hereunder:

'Section 16. Report of Seed Analyst.--(1) The Seed Analyst shall, as soon as may be after the receipt of the sample under sub-section (2) of Section 15, analyse the sample at the State Seed Laboratory and deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, one copy of the report of the result of the analysis to the Seed Inspector and another copy thereof to the person from whom sample has been taken.

(2) After the institution of a prosecution under this Act, the accused vendor or complainant may, on payment of the prescribed fee make an application to the Court for sending any of the samples mentioned in clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 15 to the Central Seed Laboratory for its report and on receipt of the application, the Court shall first ascertain that the mark and the seal or fastening as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 are intact and may then despatch the sample under its own seal to the Central Seed Laboratory which shall thereupon send its report to the Court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the sample, specifying the result of the analysis.

(3) The report sent to the Central Seed Report under sub-section (2) shall supersede the report given by the seed analyst under sub-section (1).

(4) Where the report sent by Central Seed Report under sub-section (2) is produced in any proceedings under Section 19, it shall not be necessary in such proceedings to produce any sample or part thereof taken for analysis'.

3. Under the provisions of Section 15 of the Seeds Act when the Seed Inspector takes the samples for analysis, he has to give notice in writing to the person from whom he is taking sample and shall take three representative samples in the prescribed manner and deliver one of the samples so taken to the custody of the person from whom the samples are taken, send one sample to the Seed Analyst and to retain one sample with him for launching the prosecution. Under Section 16 of the Seeds Act, after analysis the Analyst has to submit a report and should also mark a copy of the report to the person from whom sample was taken. After launching of the prosecution, the accused vendor or the complainant if they have any objection to the report of Seed Analyst, they can apply to the Court by paying prescribed fee for sending the sample seeds for examination by the Central Seed Laboratory, The provisions of Sections 15 and 16 are mandatory in character.

4. In the instant case, although the Seed Analyst has not sent the report directly to the persons from whom the sample was seized. But nonetheless, they were furnished with the copy of the reports before launching of the prosecution by the Seed Inspector.

5. It is the contention of the petitioners that there is breach of compliance of the mandatory requisites of Section 16 of the Act and on going through the dates of filing of the private complaint in each case, it is apparent that the complaints were filed beyond the period of 11 months from the date of the report of the Analyst. It was strenuously contended by the Counsel for the petitioners that inordinate delay in launching of the prosecution has resulted in dissipation of the material evidence for the defence of the accused. Had the complaint, been lodged at the earliest before the expiry of the life of the seed the accused could have availed the benefit of getting the second examination from the Central Seed Laboratory which is now lost on account of the delayed prosecution. In this regard, Indian Minimum Seed Certification Standards Manual has been produced and at page No. 10 it is mentioned thus:

'Validity period of the certificate.--The validity period was 9 months from the date of test at the time of initial certification. The validity period could be further extended for six months provided on retesting seed conforms to the prescribed standards in respect of physical purely, germination and insect damage for all seeds except vegetatively propagating material for which lot shall be re-examined that seed standards specified for in respect of crop. A seed lot will be eligible for extension of the validity period as long as it conforms to the prescribed standards. The procedure for extension of the validity period is given in Appendix IX'.

6. Therefore, the scientific opinion on the subject indicates that normal lifespan of the seed to have its effective reproductive capacity is 9 months and sometimes the quality of the seed may continue to be unaffected for a period of 6 more months. But however, after completion of 9 months, a second check is required to find out whether the quality of the seed remains intact or dissipated. Therefore, in the present cases, it is obvious that from the date of report to the date of complaint, the prosecution are launched beyond 11 months and in some cases it is 15 months and in one case it is 17 months. Therefore, whatever, the benefit the accused have to get by way of examination by the Central Seed Laboratory is once and for all lost. Besides, the limitation for launching the prosecution had also expired since the offence is punishable with only fine. Within six months from the date of detection of the offence, the prosecution should be launched. But in all these cases, from the date of analyst report, the prosecution is launched beyond a period of 6 months. Therefore, all the impugned proceedings are evidently visited by illegality.

7. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the proceedings are set aside.