IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29%: DAY or OCTOBER, 20,10
BEFORE " O
TI-IE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.sREENNA_sE =
CriminaIPetition No. .3719po£péoo??}
Between
Sri G Munirayappa,
Ex Manager, _ ---
Karnataka State Seeds. Corpo1'at'1or1';* -» _
smmoga. . 7 O
R/ at. No.389, Neethifl7F3F;§hai.v'V._VV» Vt iv .. =
Hnd Stage, Sivdsjartha:_'Layot1t,_p - ~
Mysore. " =i " . * "
Petitioner
{By J;
Agxjoiiiture
" '~ _Cu11i'Seed».Ir1speotor;"
._ ,Off1ce of.th,.e'Asst. Director
__. or A'gri_Cua1tu're_, " '_.
Respondent
{B3} Sri. B. Rajasubrahmanya Bhat, SPP]
O This Cr1.p filed U/s.482 Cr.P.C by the advocate
– for the petitioner praying that this Hon’b1e Court may
be pleased to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.887/2003 on the file of the C.J(JR.DN.] and
J.M.F.C Sorab.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Hearing, this
day, the Court, made the following:
0 R I) E R
Petitioner arrayed as accused No.2 in the
as Manager of Karnataka Seed ‘
Shirnoga, has preferred this abovepetitiolni”se,e1§i1igj_fo’;: To
quashing of proceedings in /
the file of Civil Judge [Jr.Dn;):Vy:’al:Ld
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits, by the tirne received the
surrirnons the shelf life of the
seeds he could not challenge
thepgreplort of the: Seed; Analyst and ask for retesting
All:’tihrougli:Central Seed Laboratory as permissible under
Se-of.31’G{l2).,l__oi:;’tlie Seeds Act. Therefore, Continuation of
cririzinal proceedings will not serve any purpose and he
prays quashing of further proceedings.
Learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent — State does not dispute
the said fact.
4. The seeds in question is paddy. The Seed Analyst
of Seed Testing Laboratory, Bangalore, functioning
under Karnataka Seeds Certification a
Government of Karnataka undertaking, ‘_
14-2-98 has certified that their-as:1spvg11a,1a~,9temonths; C ;
i.e. upto 13-11-98, during which re«spS;{;in.S§1e1<1t
».r' complainant collected thasampie frorn
the accused No.1 the Seed
Laboratory, Dharwaid, Dharwad,
by report the sample of
Daddy No.1 is a sub-
said report, respondent
fi1edx”a.,V_ the accused before the trial
unwdergsec. of Cr.P.C. read with Rule 6(a) of
Tiétules, and requested the trial Court to
._ in accordance law.
1
5. ” _ _A7I’he trial Court after registering the complaint as
it ‘V_,_C:’;.C.No.887/O3 issued summons to the petitioner on
27-2-99, by which time, the shelf life of the paddy had
expired as per Analysts report dt. I4-2–98. As a result,
accused could not have availed the opportunity of
Challenging the report of the Seed Laboratory, Dharwad,
and ask for retesting of the seeds through’-Central
Seeed Laboratory, as permitted under Seo,.’_”i the
Seed Act, 1966. Therefore, continuatiof;
proceedings will be of no use”ar”1’d to
abuse of process of law. V
6. For the aforesaid re_as»on’s_V, CriminaIJPetition is
allowed and the prticeeatngs ‘ittjti,’e.No.s87/2003 on
the file of the ctvttrssattttvget,jt.o%n.)..@d’&’afia JMFC, Sorab,
against the:pegtitioner/aeeused,No;i2’;V are quashed.
Sd/–«
Judge