TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1921
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Brief facts of the case are that applicant is a Private Limited Company registered under the provision of Companies Act 1956 and engaged in the business of seeds. On 04.11.2016 respondent No.3 visited the godown of the applicant and collected 3 samples of wheat seeds viede lot No. 922709, 922595 and 922573. After collecting 3 samples of wheat seeds, the samples were sent to Seed Testing Labortory Gwalior and a report was received vide letter dated 02.12.2016 wherein the germination of 2 samples was found to be 77 & 78 percent germinated respectively, the Central Seeds Certification Board, New Delhi has laid the benchmark as 85% and therefore the said samples were found sub-standard. Since the applicant has produced sub- standard wheat seeds....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2638/2014 (M.H Krishnamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka) High Court of Karnataka and Criminal Petition No.2197 /2001 S.A. Jayanarayana Vs. State of Karnataka- High Court of Karnataka, learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that first information report lodged in the present case did not disclose any offence which can be investigated by the police authority. Referring to the various provisions of the Seeds Act and the Rules made thereunder, it was contended that the Seed Inspector under the Seeds Act and the Rules is duly empowered to investigate into any such complaint regarding the contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder and, thereafter based on the conclusions of his investigation, he is requir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....king cognizance from the complaint lodged by the Senior Agricultural Development Officer, Depalpur. It is further contended that there is no statutory bar for lodging complaint by the Seed Inspector to the police authorities under the Seeds Act, hence he prayed for dismissal of the application. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7.Undisputedly, the complaint in the first information report lodged by the Senior Agricultural Development Officer, Depalpur is to the effect that the two samples of the wheat seeds collected from the godown of the applicant was found to be 77 and 78 % germinated. However, as per Central Seeds Board, New Delhi laid benchmark as 85% and since the samples collected from the god....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Being so, once it is clear that the offences disclosed were non-cognizable offences, there was no occasion for the police to investigate into the matter as far as the offences alleged under the Seeds Act is concerned. 8. It is then sought to be contended on behalf of the respondent that the FIR also disclose the offence Punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and since the said offence is cognizable offence, the police were within their power to register the complaint and to commence the investigation in the matter. Rule 23 A (2) of the Seeds Rules, 1968 provides that if a farmer has lodged a complaint....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 10. As regards the FIR lodged for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, there is nothing in the contents of the FIR that the applicant has violated any rules prescribed under Seeds (Control) order 1983, therefore, there was no case made out for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act against the applicant. It is found that the offence disclose in the first information report is non-cognizable, therefore, police authorities are not entitled to investigate in the m....