IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 8th DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4683 of 2000 Between: A.Ravindra Raju … Petitioner And Assistant Director of Agriculture and three others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4683 of 2000 ORDER: - This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.966 of 2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira initiated against him for the offence punishable under Section 6(a) & 7(b) r/w Section 19(a) of Seeds Act, 1966 (for brevity, “the Act”). The relevant facts that give raise to filing of this petition are that, on 04.06.1998 the Agricultural Officer/Seeds Inspector, Thallada has inspected the seed dealer premises of accused No.2 at Thallada and during the course of inspection, he found paddy DPT-5204 variety stored for sale. After issuing notice for drawal of a seed sample in form No.VI, he drawn three samples of seed from the lots and taken three separate samples for each lot and each sample contains 500 gms. After drawal of the said samples, he handed over one sample to the Depot Manager-accused No.2. The said samples were despatched to the Assistant Director of Agriculture (seed testing lab), Tadepalligudem through reference, dated 04.06.1998 in form No.V. The second sample has been kept with L.W.1 for safe custody till it required either Court of law or for Inspection for re-analysis. On 29.06.1998 the Assistant Director of Agriculture communicated the analysis report in form VII, stating that the Paddy DPT-5204 seed sample, Lab No.1131- Lot No.73468, Germination 50% as unsatisfactory as the Germination 65% is required for seed purpose. After receipt of the said report, a copy of the same was submitted to accused No.2 by the Agricultural Officer and he seized the relevant documents. A show cause notice has also been issued to accused Nos. 1 to 3. As per the instructions of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Khammam, on 02.02.1999 the second sample was also sent to the Assistant Director of Agriculture (seeds testing), Rajendranagar, Hyderabad and on 01.03.1999 he communicated the result as sub-standard with Germination of 29%. On receipt of the same, the above charge sheet has been filed on 27.01.2000. It is not the case of the complainant that the accused were previously convicted for the offence punishable under the provisions of the Act. This is the only first offence. Section 19(c)(i) of the Act, prescribes the penalty for the first offence with fine, which may extend to Rs.500/-. In such a case, as per Section 468(2)(a) Cr.P.C., the limitation in case of an offence punishable with fine is only six months and the section bars for taking cognizance of the offence filed beyond the period of six months from the date of offence. Section 469 Cr.P.C., also further prescribes the commencement of the period of limitation as on the date of offence i.e., on 29.06.1998, the date when the first sample was received. Even if we take 01.03.1999, the date on which the test results of the second sample were communicated, as the date of starting point for calculation of the period of limitation, the proceedings initiated against the accused on 27.01.2000, are beyond the period of limitation and hence, it cannot be proceeded and are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 8th July 2010 lmv