AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Nagamuthu, J.—The petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 5899 of 2007 are the accused in C.C. No. 85 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kovilpatti facing prosecution for the offences punishable u/s 7(l)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Section 8(A) read with 13(l)(c) of the Seeds (Control) Order 1983. The petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 5903 of 2007 are the accused in C.C. No. 84 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kovilpatti and they are also facing similar charges. In both the cases, the respondent is the Complainant. The petitioners have come forward with these Criminal Original Petitions, seeking to quash the said proceedings.
Since common questions of law are involved in these Criminal Original Petitions, this common order is passed.
In both the cases, the respondent, who is the Seed Inspector having jurisdiction over the area took samples of Sunflower seeds as provided in Clause 13(c) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the "Control Order") and sent the samples for examination by the Seeds Analyst, Thirunelveli. The Seeds Analyst gave a report that the germination was found to be 56% (in C.C. No. 85 of 2007), whereas according to the label, the germination was shown to be 70%. Similarly in CC. No. 84 of 2007, the Seeds Analyst found the germination at 29% whereas according to the label, the germination was 70%. Since according to the Analyst Report in both the cases the standard of the seeds kept for sale were not in conformity with the quality claimed on the label, the respondent filed the private complaints against the petitioners respectively as stated above.
The main contentions in both the cases are as follows:-
(a) The Seed Inspector had failed to follow the procedure prescribed u/s 14(4) of the Seeds Act, 1966 and Section 13(2) of the Control Order as two witnesses required were not summoned while samples were taken.
(b) The respondent failed to follow the mandatory statutory procedure provided u/s 16(1) of the Seeds Act, 1966.
(c) The respondent has failed to follow the mandatory statutory procedure provided in Section 14(2) of the Seeds Act
(d) The complaint was lodged before the learned Magistrate after the expiry of the life of the samples and thus, the accused have been deprived of the valuable right to have the second sample analysed by Central Seed Laboratory as provided in Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act.
(e) Rules 29 and 30 of the Seed Rules 1968 have not been followed.
I have carefully considered the submissions.
To appreciate the above points, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the Seeds Control Order 1983, for violation of which the prosecution has been launched in these two cases. The scheme of the Control Order would go to show that the Control Order has not been issued prescribing or regulating any standard of the seeds. Prescribing the standard, regulating the standard and sale of seeds are governed by the Seeds Act. The Seed Inspector appointed under the Seeds Act is different from an Inspector appointed under the Control Order. For the purposes of the Seeds Act, the Seed Inspector is appointed u/s 13 of the Seeds Act and his powers are defined in Section 14 and the procedure to be followed by him is defined in Section 15 of the Seeds Act. The Seeds Act also provides for penalty for contravention of any of the provisions. Under the Seeds Act, if a Seed Inspector appointed has reason to believe that there is any contravention of any of the provisions of the Seeds Act, he has been empowered to take samples u/s 14 of the Act and while doing so, he has to follow the procedure contemplated u/s 15 of the Seeds Act. In respect of Report of the Seed Analyst also provision has been made in Section 16 of the Seeds Act. Thus, the Seed Inspector has been empowered to launch the prosecution before the competent Magistrate. Of course, under the Seeds Act, the Seed Inspector is required to take samples in the presence of two persons and there is also specific procedure as to how the samples should be packed, sealed and to whom the same should be forwarded for analysis. The Seeds Act also exhaustively deal with the other procedure in respect of launching of Prosecution. u/s 16(2) of the Seeds Act, a right has been conferred upon the accused to request the Court to send the second sample for Analysis by the Central Seed Laboratory. But, in the cases on hand, the prosecution has not been launched by the Seed Inspector appointed under the Seeds Act. The respondent is the Seed Inspector appointed under clause 12 of the Control Order. Therefore, the powers and the procedure contemplated in the Seeds Act cannot be made automatically applicable to the Seed Inspector appointed under the Control Order.
Clause 13(c) of the Control Order, under which sample was taken by the respondent in these cases reads as follows:-
Inspection and Punishment:- (1) An Inspector may with a view to securing compliance with this order -
(a) require any dealer to give any information in his possession with respect to purchase, storage and sale of seeds by him;
(b) enter upon and search any premises where any seed is stored or exhibited for sale to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Order;
(c) draw samples of seeds meant for sale, export and seeds imported, and send the same in accordance with the procedure laid down in Schedule I, to a laboratory notified under the Seeds Act, 1966 (54 of 1966), to ensure the sample conforms to standard of quality claimed;
(d) seize or detain any seed in respect of which he has reason to believe that a contravention of this Order has been committed or is being committed;
(e) seize any books of accounts or document relating to any seed in respect of which he has reason to believe that a contravention of the Order has been committed or is being committed;
Provided that the Inspector shall give a receipt, in respect of the books of accounts or documents seized, to the person from whom they have been seized;
Provided further that the seized book of accounts or documents shall be returned to the person from whom the same had been seized after copies thereof or extracts therefrom as certified by such person have been taken.
(2) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (d) of sub-clause (1), the provision of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974), relating to search and seizure shall, so far as may be, apply to searches and seizures under this clause.
(3) Where any seed is seized by an Inspector under this clause, he shall forthwith re-port the fact of such seizure to a Magistrate whereupon the provisions of Sections 457 and 458 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974), shall, so far as may be, apply to the custody and disposal of such seed.
(4) Every person, if so required by an Inspector, shall be bound to offer all necessary facilities to him for the purpose of enabling him to exercise his power under this clause.
A close analysis of Clause 13(c) of the Control Order would go to show that the seed which is displayed for sale is required to conform to the standard of quality claimed by the person, who keeps it for sale.
In these cases, as per the labels of the seeds, the standard of quality claimed by the accused is 70% whereas on examination, it was found that it was only less than the same. Regarding the procedure for taking samples and forwarding the same for analyst, clause 13(c) of the Control Order provides that the procedure laid down in Schedule I is to be followed. But, the said Schedule I does not prescribe that the sample seeds should be drawn in the presence of two witnesses as it is provided in the Seeds Act. Therefore, the procedure for drawing the samples, packing, selling and forwarding the same for analysis as provided in the Seeds Act cannot be imported to the provisions of the Control Order. Schedule to the Control Order itself provides for the labeling of the contents and to whom the parcel shall be addressed.
Further analysis of the Control Order would make it manifestly clear that no right whatsoever has been given to the accused to have the second sample analysed by the Central Seeds Laboratory after prosecution is launched. As already extracted, such right to have the second sample analysed by the Central Seeds Laboratory has been provided in Section 16 of the Seeds Act and the same is applicable only in respect of the Seed Inspector appointed under the Seeds Act and in respect of any prosecution launched under the Seeds Act. The said provision cannot be read into the provisions of the Control Order at all since the Control Order and the Seeds Act operate on different areas.
The Object of the Seeds Act 1966 is to regulate the quality of certain seeds for sale and for the matters connected therewith. But, the Object of the Control Order is only to control the dealers carrying on the business of selling, exporting and importing seeds and their agents. The Control Order provides for license, display of stock and price list by the dealers etc. Whenever any dealer contravenes any of the provisions of the Control Order or if any person deals with the seeds without license, then he is liable to be punished under the provisions of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Under the Control Order, the dealer is required to ensure that the sample conforms to the standard of quality claimed by him. The Control Order does not provide for any standard at all as it is provided in the Seeds Act.
Here, in these cases, the prosecution is for having failed to ensure the sample conforming to the standard of quality claimed by the accused. The Seed Analyst report makes out a prima facie case against them. The provisions of the Seeds Act have got no application at all to the Control Order, except to the extent indicated in clause 13(l)(c) of the Control Order. Clause 13(l)(c) of the Control Order states that the sample is to be analysed by a Laboratory notified under the Seeds Act. Except to that extent, the provisions of the Seeds Act cannot be imported to the Control Order at all.
In these two petitions, all the grounds raised by the petitioners are relating to the violation of the provisions of'' the Seeds Act. Since these provisions are not at all applicable to the Seeds Control Order, 1983, there is no question of violation of any mandatory procedure. Thus, I do not find any valid ground in these petitions to quash the proceedings.
For the above reasons, these Criminal Original Petitions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same are dismissed.