THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No. 3884 of 2011 ORDER: This criminal petition is directed against the order taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 6(a) and 7(a) read with Section 19 of the Seeds Act, 1966 in C.C.No. 3 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Perused the records. The petitioner/accused No.3 has produced tomato seed variety S-22 lot No.5-5BAB. According to the prosecution on 23.09.2008 at 10.30 A.M., the Agricultural Officer, Pakala who is also Seeds Inspector inspected the premises of M/s. Sandhya Seeds and Pesticides, Pakala which is owned by accused No.1. It was found that the stock of the tomato seeds variety S-22 lot No.5-5BAB was supplied to accused No.1 by M/s. Kumar Seeds and Pesticides, Tirupathi i.e., accused No.2 and the same was produced by M/s. Prabhakar Hybrid Seeds, Rayachoti i.e., accused No.3. The Agricultural Officer took sample of tomato seeds after complying with the procedural requirements under the cover of panchanama in the presence of two mediators. On examination of the sample by the Seed Testing Lab, Hyderabad, it was found that the said seeds do not conform to the prescribed standards of germination i.e., minimum 70% and the germination percentage was found to be only 51. Thereafter, the complaint was lodged before the learned Magistrate and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.3 of 2009. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that taking cognizance of the complaint is bad as it was filed beyond the period of limitation. It is not disputed that the offence under Section 19 of the Seeds Act, 1966 is punishable only with fine of Rs.500/- and for such an offence which is punishable only with fine, the limitation prescribed under Section 468(2)(a) of Cr.P.C. is only six months. Admittedly, the sample was lifted on 23.09.2008 and cognizance of the offence was taken on 25.07.2009 which is beyond the period of six months from the date of lifting the sample. Thus, the cognizance of the offence has been taken beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468(2)(a) of Cr.P.C. and hence, the same is bad in law. Further, proceedings in pursuance thereof are therefore, clearly unsustainable and continuance of such further proceedings can only be abuse of process of law. It is, therefore, considered that it is a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings in C.C.No.3 of 2009 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor and they are accordingly quashed. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed as stated above. G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J Dt. 08.07.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No. 3884 of 2011 Dt. 08.07.2011