IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS TEE WDAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009
BEFORE V M T
THE HON'BLE MRIUSTICE SUBHASH
CRIMINAL PETITION :1*:(}.»1.618/'2titi_9" i
BETWEEN: 1 i it i 1' ii
Shri. K.Sridhar,
Proprietor, M/s Suhas Agro Traders,
Shop No.B--1, Sri.Kri.shna Complex,
D.Banumaiah Square, V
Ramavilas Road, _ " -.
Mysore we 24- ~ ' " '*PE"1"ITIONER
(By Smt.GeetI1aA_1ji'evi ' It
AND:
K.M.Sornétsu11t1ra,"».'IV, --
Assistant Director of Ag.ricu1'ture--. i
&Seeds!nspeeto1'I, ' . '
Mysore Taluk. ' .. RESPONDENT
' my ;i1}i':~R;s;E:<Iz;t, Hocrm *
V T_"£'i1iI:;"{Z;rit§ii;::ai1"?etition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
quash" the ooIr_Ifg}__aiII;t"'in C.C.No.508 of 2008 on the file of the JMFC III
COi1I't.?;t Mysoreg '
_ ' ' iifoellowihg:
This Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the
ORDER
Petitioner is seeking quashing of the proceedings in
‘ C.C.No.508/2008 on the file of 3’.M.F.C.–ilI Court, Mysore.
3
«%r:’*::—~
.-. Q-
2. A private cornpiaint is filed by the Assistant Director of
Agricuiture and Seeds Inspector, Mysore for an offence punishabie under
Section 19A of the Seeds Act, 1966 imeralia atieging that, seeds.._s_oid by
the petitioner did not had the requisite quality of germinationja1id”:in”‘this
regard, the compiainant aiieges that, according to
percentage of germination if less than the :re’qu~isite and ii A
whereas the seeds’ sample taken from the V,
the germination percentage oniy to of 4Q’, ‘betow the
normal.
3. In pursuance of the ~iconi’p}aiint, learned Magistrate on
satisfying himseif tha_t*~th_ere is”‘s’uffi’cienaground..to* proceed against the
accused issued ,sI,:rnné::ns_. “At this’-stage,’ this petition has been filed.
4. No doobti, thexiearned Counsei appearing for the petitioner relies
_,on testnfeports aiIeg’e~d_to have been conducted by the Government
‘Agencies in niviaharashtra as Wei} as Karnataka, showing that, the
gerrninat.ion ‘pe-rcenitage is more than 80. However, one other thing to be
noticed in this case is that, the compiaint is fiied on 26.5.2008 in respect
‘test conducted in February 2008. it is stated that, the validity of
the seed itseif is oniy for a period of nine months, beyond nine months,
“thewyuare not fit to be tested. In this case. the summons was issued in
Ianuary 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 t,he_itriai.,_is
conducted, the petitioner would be prejudiced by the test _
the complainant and has no re–testing,~.opportuni’ty.’*–:_
:. in itheae
circumstances, this Court in a judgment reported ;2’OO2(1 in
the matter of SR1 VCHANDRU OTH’EZI§S~ or-.0,’
KARNATAKA has observed by the ac.cuse:d_,ap,pear, if the
accused is not in a position to chalilenge. get it re-tested or re-
checked from the comeirned be denial of opportunity
and reliance on ‘not and has quashed the
proceedings”.
5. Jtind that, by the time the accused
4’_.,appear,j§he validity”‘ofVthe seeds would have been expired, there is no
Vpurpose_ in conti.nuing the trial.
the petition is allowed. The proceedings in
-.f’fi;f~___C;.C.No.508{§i008 on the file of I.M.F.C.-III Court, Mysore stand
Vi §5sash.cd’l-‘
Sd/-4
EUDGE
KNM/–