2018 (10) TMI 1921 - HC - Indian Laws

Production and sale of sub- standard wheat seeds to the farmers for earning profits - complaint made by the Senior Agriculture Development Officer Depalpur - offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 and Section 420 of I.P.C. - HELD THAT - Rule 23 A (2) of the Seeds Rules 1968 provides that if a 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 Seeds 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 and that he shall thereupon submit the report of his findings as soon as possible to the competent authority. In the present case no farmers have made any complaint regarding failure of his crop due to defective quality of seeds sold by the applicant. The allegation in the complaint is that the samples of seeds taken from the godown of the applicant were found sub- standard. It clearly requires that a person to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. has necessarily to act in a manner which will amount to dishonestly inducing other person who has been deceived by the act of cheating to deliver any property or any valuable security - the ingredient of offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. is the dishonest inducement to the person cheated to deliver the property or valuable security. In the instant case on the face of the first information reports in question does not disclose any fact which can constitute or prima facie establish an act of inducement by the applicant in the matter of or in relation to the seeds therefore absolutely no case is made out for the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. on the face of the first information reports. Quashing of the first information reports and the investigation by the Police by this order however will not debar the appropriate authorities under the Seeds Act to take necessary action and / or proceedings whichever legally permissible in accordance with the provisions of law - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to FIR under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for offences under Essential Commodities Act and IPC.

Analysis:
1. The applicant challenged the FIR under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for offences under the Essential Commodities Act and IPC. The applicant, a Private Limited Company engaged in seed business, was accused of selling sub-standard wheat seeds to farmers, leading to the FIR being registered. The applicant contended that the complaint did not disclose a cognizable offence empowering police investigation. They argued that the Seeds Inspector, under the Seeds Act, is empowered to investigate such complaints, and there was no violation of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 by the applicant.

2. The applicant cited various judgments to support their argument that the FIR did not disclose any offence requiring police investigation. They emphasized that the Seeds Act provides for penalties for contraventions, making it a special act dealing with seed-related provisions, thus precluding simultaneous prosecution under IPC or Essential Commodities Act. The maximum punishment under Seeds Act being a fine of Rs. 500, the offence was non-cognizable as per the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The Public Prosecutor contended that the complaint showed clear cheating with dishonest intent towards farmers, justifying investigation under IPC Section 420. It was argued that there was a violation of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, allowing police investigation. The absence of a statutory bar for the Seed Inspector to lodge complaints to police under the Seeds Act was highlighted.

4. The court analyzed the complaint and relevant laws. It found that the allegations primarily pertained to offences under the Seeds Act, which prescribe penalties for contraventions. Since the offences were non-cognizable, police investigation was not warranted. The court observed that the complaint did not establish dishonest inducement necessary for IPC Section 420 offence.

5. Regarding the Essential Commodities Act offence, the court found no violation of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 by the applicant, thus no case was made out under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act. Citing precedent, the court emphasized that FIRs must disclose cognizable offences. Consequently, the court quashed the FIR and the investigation, allowing authorities under the Seeds Act to take appropriate legal action if warranted.

6. The judgment emphasized the importance of FIRs disclosing cognizable offences and the need for legal provisions to guide investigations. The court's decision to quash the FIR highlighted the requirement for clear legal grounds for police action and the need for adherence to statutory procedures in criminal matters.