Author Name:   YSRAO JUDGE

The period of limitation in seeds cases is very important aspect. the seed inspector must not forget the procedure contemplated under section 468 of Cr.P.C

The enactment of the Seeds Act, 1966, is to regulate the quality of seeds sold, by providing for compulsory labelling and voluntary certification as well as to maintain the quality of seeds. Quality seed is the fundamental basic input for good crop yields and thus the quality of seed available to the farming community assumes great importance in an agriculture based country like ours.

Period of Limitation: how to be Calculated?
In case of first offence, as to Seeds Act, the punishment is fine only. If that be so, under section 468 (2) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the period of limitation is six months. There is some confusion as to calculation of period of limitation that is to say whether for prosecution under Sections 7, 19 and 16(1) of the Seeds Act, 1966, the period of limitation of six months would start from the date of collection of samples under clause (a) or from the date of Seed Analyst report for purposes of clause (b) of Section 469(1) Cr.P.C. To remove such confusion, it is apt to discuss the said point of period of limitation with help of the following rulings of our Superior Courts.

In Gadamsetty Sriramulu vs Assistant Director Of Agriculture... : 2003 (2) ALD Cri 4, 2003 CriLJ 3352 ,At para 3., it was held that ‘ What is stated in Section 468, Cr.P.C. is the period of limitation is six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only. It is not stated in the said section that maximum punishment prescribed has to be taken into consideration for fixing the period of limitation. In construing the statutes, the interpretation favourable to the accused has to be given, since there is a lacuna found in the section. It is no where specified under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. that the when punishment differ for the subsequent offences, the maximum punishment has to be taken into consideration. In view of lacuna found in the section, I am of considered view that the interpretation which is favourable to the accused has to be taken into consideration, while judging the case. It only prescribes the period of limitation of six months, whenever, the offence is punishable with fine only. The petitioner in this case is only a first offender. Seeds Act, 1966 also prescribe imposition of fine only. He can never be convicted beyond the fine and in such case, the period of limitation must be taken as six months. No doubt, the interpretation put on by this Court leads to prescribing the limitation for the same offence differentiating the matters to first offence, second offence etc. I have already stated that lacuna is found in the section. It is not for this Court to fill up the gap. It is for the legislature to bring about changes in the legislation, and include the maximum period of punishment mentioned under the section must be considered for the purpose of determining the limitation. The first offence is only punishable with fine only. The period of limitation shall be reckoned as six months. The sample was taken on 19-9-2000. The charge-sheet was laid on 8-5-2001. It is hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.’

Despite in the case , the factum of lifting sample was taken into consideration, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State Of Rajasthan vs Sanjay Kumar & Ors, it was observed that the period of limitation would start from the date on which the report of the Analyst was received but not from the date of taking samples.

Shailaja vs State Of Karnataka; 2002 CriLJ 761, 2002 (1) KarLJ 247, in para 4., it was held that But the question in this case is as to from what date the period of limitation commences. The enactment of the present Act viz., the Seeds Act, 1966, was to regulate the quality of seeds sold, by providing for compulsory labelling and voluntary certification as well as to maintain the quality of seeds. Quality seed is the fundamental basic input for good crop yields and thus the quality of seed available to the farming community assumes great importance in an agriculture based country like ours. As per Section 6 of the Seeds Act a specific minimum limit of germination and purity is fixed as well as the mandatory requirement of mark or label to indicate such seed conforms to the minimum limit of germination and purity. If this is violated which is to be judged by seizing such seeds and subjecting them to Seed Analysis test. No doubt, in the present case, seeds were seized on 5-6-1997 and immediately thereafter they were subjected to analysis. The Seed Analyst's report was received on 1-7-1997. In my view, the period of limitation for the prosecution of the offence of this nature would not start when the samples were taken since at that time it is not certain whether the offence alleged is committed or not. It will be known only when the Seed Analyst under Section 16(1) of the Act submits his report regarding the quality and if such report shows that the seed is sub-standard only then such merchant or dealer of the said seeds can be prosecuted. Thus, in my view, the date of submission of the report by the Seed Analyst as per Section 16(1) of the Act is the starting point for calculation of the limitation as prescribed under Section 468 of the Cr. P.C. In the present case, admittedly, the report of the Analyst was submitted on 1-7-1997 and the limitation for filing the complaint expires six months thereafter, i.e., on 1-1-1998. As such the prosecution or lodging of the complaint should be on or before 1-1-1998. Undisputedly, in the present case the complaint was filed on 16-5-1998 and hence clearly beyond the period of limitation prescribed. In this view of the matter, as the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation, the Court cannot take cognizance of the same and proceed with the prosecution. The learned Magistrate has lost his power by virtue of Section 468 read with Section 471 of the Cr. P.C. Hence, the initiation of the proceedings and issue of process in the present case is clearly without jurisdiction and illegal, as the same is hit by the provisions of the limitation as per Section 468 of the Cr. P.C.

State Of Rajasthan vs Sanjay Kumar & Ors on 1 May, 1998; the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that ‘Under cognate legislations of different States, similar questions arose before the High Courts. In R.S. Arora vs. The State (1987) Crl. Law Journal 1225, the question which fell for consideration of Delhi High Court was whether for prosecution under Sections 7, 19 and 16(1) of the Seeds Act, 1966, the period of limitation of six months would start from the date of collection of samples under clause (a) or from the date of Seed Analyst report for purposes of clause (b) of Section 469(1) Cr.P.C. The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court took the view that the limitation commences from the date of submission of the report by the Seed Analyst to the Inspector, so Section 469(1) (b) would apply. The same view was taken by the Bombay High Court in Omprakash Gulabchandji Partani vs. Ashok & Anr. (1992) Crl. L. J. 2704. In M/s. Satyanarayana General Traders & Ors. vs. State (1993) 2 Crimes 203, a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh high Court held that for prosecution of offences of mis-branding under Insecticides Act, the period of limitation would start from the date on which the report of the Analyst was received but not from the date of taking samples and thus Section 469(1) (b) would be attracted. We are in entire agreement with the views expressed by the learned Judges of the High Courts in the above cases. For the above reasons, in the instant case, the limitation for the purpose of Section 468(2) (c) will commence from July 2, 1988, the date of knowledge of the commission of offence to the concerned officer under Section 469(1) (b) but not from February 29,1988 (the date of collection of samples by the Drugs Inspector) and as the complaint was filed on June 28, 1991 which is within three years so the complaint is not barred by limitation under Section 468(2) (c). The High Court has missed this germane aspect erroneously took the date of commencement of the limitation as February 29,1988 , the date on which the samples were collected by the Drugs Inspector form accused No. 16. It is thus clear that the High Court has committed illegality in so computing the period of limitation, which results in miscarriage of justice.’

Conclusion:
In view of the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in State Of Rajasthan vs Sanjay Kumar & Ors, it is clearly known that the period of limitation, either in case of Seeds Act or in case of Insecticides Act, would start from the date on which the report of the Analyst was received but not from the date of taking samples.

Follow the Procedure Below To Submit Your Articles

Submit your Article by using our online form Click here
Note* we only accept Original Articles, we will not accept Articles Already Published in other websites.
For Further Details Contact: editor@legalserviceindia.com

File Your Copyright - Right Now!