THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6607 OF 2008 ORDER: This is a petition filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.) for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.802 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajhamundry, East Godavari District, against the present petitioner, who is A.1 therein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel on behalf of the Public Prosecutor. 3. The main contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that the samples were taken on 09.06.2000 and 12.06.2000 by the seed inspector and the same were sent for analysis and the report was received on 31.07.2000 holding that the tested seeds are appear to the minimum level of germination and the complaint was lodged on 23.04.2001 i.e. after more than six months period. As such the said complaint is barred by limitation. 4. As per the averments made in the charge sheet, A.1 is the dealer dealing with the seed business in the name and style of M/S Sri Sneha Enterprises at Jaggampeta. The seed inspector inspected the dealer’s firm on 09.06.2000 and 12.06.2000 and drawn three test samples and sent the same for analysis at Seed Testing Laboratory at Rajendranagar, Hyderabad and received the report on 31.07.2000 and the present complaint against the accused No.1 filed on 24.03.2001. The petitioner herein was charged for the offence under Sections 7 (b) read with 19 of the Seeds Act. Section 7 (b) of the Seeds Act deals with regulation of sale of seeds of notified kinds or varieties and Section 19 of the said Act provides penalty and the penalty that can be imposed on the first offence is fine up to Rs.500/- only. 5. Section 468 of Cr.P.C. provides limitation for taking cognizance of the offences and the punishment is only fine, the period of limitation is only six months. 6. In the present case, samples were drawn on 09.06.2000 and 12.06.2000, which gives rise to cause of action for the complainant to lodge the complaint, but the complaint was filed on 23.04.2001, which is beyond the period of Six months. Therefore, the said complaint against the present petitioner is barred by limitation. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the present petitioner would amounts to abuse of process of law. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the present petitioner in C.C.No.802 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajhamundry are hereby quashed. _______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 31st March, 2011 KSP