.~ on test ‘ ireports alleged V
.’Apgencievs T in
.___i”th’e seed itself is only for a period of nine months,
they are notfit to be tested.
2. A private complaint is filed by the Assistant Director of
Agriculture and Seeds Inspector, Mysore for an offence punishable under
Section l9~A of the Seeds Act, l966 inreralia alleging that,” by
the petitioner did not had the requisite quality of gerrn’iination.,:and
regard, the complainant alleges that, ac
percentage of germination if less than thei’reqiu.is’ite percentage ’80iian,d
5
whereas the seeds’ sample taken fronjithe petitioner,
sfpossesision shown
the germination percentage only togtlie of 40,iw’h’ic’li is below the
normal.
3. In purs?2__§ian(,3’%§,,-igftvithei,ciomp_laint, ‘the’ learned Magistrate on
satisfying himself thatthere isii’si.iffii:i’ent ground to proceed against the
accused issued surIrtnon_s.;«.At«tlii’s..stage, this petition has been filed.
4. No ‘theilearn.ed’ Counsel appearing for the petitioner relies
have been conducted by the Government
e
‘i\Jl’ah;ar*a.shtra as well as Karnataka, showing that, th
gerrnination percentiage is more than 80. However, one other thing to be
_ noticed in case is that, the complaint is filed on 26.5.2008 in respect
test conducted in February 2008. It is stated that, the validity of
beyond nine months,
in this case, the summons was issued in
intthiis
c’ouii.r1g to the ‘cion1:plaint,. “the T.
%flr~
‘.-
January 2009, by that time, the seeds’ Validity had lost in August 2008
itself. Even if the petitioner — accused, who could seek for re–testing of
the seeds, he cannot get it done and in View of the same, if..’the:”t.ri’a1_ is
conducted, the petitioner would be prejudiced by the test_.repo1iit
the complainant and has no re–testin_g»~~opport1uniit’y.*dfv» l’1:,i_’_*the-s_e ll
circumstances, this Court in a judgment reported’_’in”200’i2(
the matter of SR1′ VCHANDRU OTHERS _;;it:.;u.”~i.,;,s’1’~:at:I”E OF-T’
KARNATAKA has observed that, by the~lt,i”1:nei”thAe accused. appear, if the
accused is not in a position to it re–tested or re
checked from the concerned denial of opportunity
and reiiance on and has quashed the
proceedings; “”” –
5. that, by the time the accused
appear, the validity of Vthe s.eeds”ilwou1d have been expired, there is no
J pL1,rp0s-{its cgolntinuing the
._ petition is allowed. The proceedings in
C.C.Ne’;”507,<:0os' on the file of J.M.F.C.–Il.I Court. Mysore stand
, , ., ,"qLIesheed.. V
Sal;
Judge
V V” ., KNM/–
