1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1839 OF 2001 1. Ajit Madhukarrao Muley, Age 32 years, occ. business, resident of Shivneri Bungalow, Bansilal Nagar, Aurangabad. 2. Padmakar Haribhau Muley, aged 53 years, occ. Business, resident of "Sahyadri", Rachanakar Colony, Aurangabad. 3. Sow. Lata w/o Padmakar Muley, Aged 48 years, occ. Business, resident of "Sahyadri" Rachanakar Colony, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra. 2. Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon. 3. Police Station Officer, Police Station, Adilabad, Tq. Adilabad, Dist. Jalgaon. 4. Surendra Himmatrao Patil, Aged 40 years, Occ. service, presently working as Seed Inspector, Agriculture Dept. Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS ... 2 Mr. D.V.Soman, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. K.M.Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 3/8/2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. The Seed Inspector Surendra Himmatrao Patil approached Police on 3rd June, 1994 and informed that there was a news item in December, 1993, concerning inferior quality of seeds manufactured by Ajit Seeds Company, deceiving the agriculturists. He caused inquiry about the seeds supplied and, in pursuance thereto, visited to agriculturists at Kakode, namely, Pralhad Tukaram Teli, to his field and inspected the same. He having noticed inferior quality of the yield, at the initial stage itself, directed Agricultural Officer R.V.Chaudhari to cause Panchnama, which was complied on 27.1.1994, and it was recorded by the land holder that it was the Seed CAHH 468, which was defective and, consequently, the agriculturist has suffered and, ultimately, according to the complainant, from the period 31.5.1993 to 27.1.1994, Ajit Seeds at Aurangabad produced defective seeds and supplied the same to different dealers which was, in turn, given to the agriculturists. 3 3. Reading the above report of the Agricultural Inspector, it is apparent, the exercise of powers vested in him in terms of Seeds Rules 1968; Rules 23-A(1) and 23-A(2), which are as under, is not adhered to: "23-A: Action to be taken by the Seed Inspector if a complaint is lodged with him:- (1) If farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that the failure of the crop is due to the defective quality of seeds of any notified kind or variety supplied to him, the Seed Inspector shall take in his possession the marks or labels, the seed containers and a sample of unused seeds to the extent possible from the complainant for establishing the source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the causes of the failure of his crop by sending samples of the lot to the Seed Analyst for detailed analysis at the State Seed Testing Laboratory. He shall thereupon submit the report of his findings as soon as possible to the competent authority. 2. In case, the Seed Inspector comes to the conclusion that the failure of the crop is due to the quality of seeds supplied to the farmer being less than the minimum standards notified by the Central Government, he shall launch proceedings against the supplier for contravention of the provisions of the Act or these Rules. " 4. It is pre-requisite for the Inspector to adhere to these mandatory requirements before initiating any prosecution. Based on result of 4 such inquiry, the action in terms of penalty, as provided under the Seeds Act of 1966, by virtue of Section 19 could have been initiated and inflicted on the erring manufacturer. This exercise is not advanced, though it was expected of the officer. 5. The manufacturer has received the seeds from the breeder; Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola. Thereafter, it was processed by the Governmental agencies and certified by the District Seed Certification Agency about the quality of the breeding seed as to its performance and, thereafter only, it was the manufacturer - the seed company, whose role comes into play. All the process was allegedly carried under supervision of Seeds Certification Agency. The agency carried the seeds for testing and it was with the authorities in godown. If the Government officials could issue certificate to the applicants herein about purity and germination of seeds with release order, how come, cheating/deception will surface against applicants. The role of officials showing laxity in rules cannot be to the detriment of applicants. Since the main breeder's seed from Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth was not answering the requisite certification, it was, in that situation, expected of the certifying agency, to have indicated of such defects. 6. The Counsel invited my attention to the 5 orders of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 253/2000, 300/2000, dt.5th Dec.,2000, wherein such prosecutions initiated at the behest of Inspector Seeds manufacturer were quashed. 7. In Criminal Application No.3528/20804, by order dt.26.2.2007, this Court accepted submissions of the Counsel, placing reliance to the above referred judgment in the matter of Korra Srinivas Rao Vs. Krishnamurthy and another (2002(4) Mh.L.J. 368) and since there was non compliance of Rule 23- A(2) of the Seeds Rules, 1968, the prosecution could not have been initiated. 8. Section 415 of IPC deals with cheating, in terms, deception of any person, fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do anything if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. The case in hand definitely will not attract any of the ingredients. It was the parent Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth which was required to breed the genes/seeds and, thereafter, get it certified, 6 percolated to the manufacturer, like the present. The requisite precautions expected at the higher level were not complied with. It follows, there was no intention on behalf of the applicant herein to fraudulently or dishonestly induce the purchasers or the agriculturists. The prosecution dt.3.6.1994, vide Crime No. 77/1994, will not survive ( RCC No.67/1994) and is, therefore, quashed and set aside. Refund of cash, if deposited in bail. Rule made absolute accordingly. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/1839-01crapl