Home       Top Rated       Submit Article     Advanced Search     FAQ       Contact Us       Lawyers in India       Law Forum     RSS Feeds     

Register your Copyright Online

We offer copyright registration right from your desktop click here for details.

Latest Articles | Articles 2014 | Articles 2013 | Articles 2012 | Articles 2011 | Articles 2010 | Articles 2009 | Articles 2008 | Articles 2007 | Articles 2006 | Articles 2000-05

Search On:Laws in IndiaLawyers Search

Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi
We provide fast, cost effective and Hassle free solution.
Contact us at Ph no: 9650499965 (Divorce Law Firm Delhi)

E-mail login                       Password
     

Free Email Sign Up

Main Categories
 Accident Law
 Arbitration
 Aviation Law
 Banking and Finance laws
 Case Laws
 Civil Laws
 Company Law
 Constitutional Law
 Consumer laws
 Contracts laws
 Criminal law
 Drug laws
 Dubai laws
 Educational laws
 Employment / Labour laws
 Environmental Law
 family law
 Gay laws and Third Gender
 Human Rights laws
 Immigration laws
 Insurance / Accident Claim
 Intellectual Property
 International Law
 Juvenile Laws
 Law - lawyers & legal Profession
 Legal Aid and Lok Adalat
 Legal outsourcing
 Media laws
 Medico legal
 Miscellaneous
 Real estate laws
 Right To Information
 Tax Laws
 Torts Law
 Woman Issues
 Workplace Equality & Non-Discrimination
 Yet Another Category

More Options
 Most read articles
 Most rated articles

Subscription
Subscribe now and receive free articles and updates instantly.

Name
Email



Copyright Registration

To Copyright Your Books, Videos, Songs, Scripts etc
Call us at: 9891244487 / or email at: admin@legalserviceindia.com
Top Law Colleges

Law Updates:

# Income-Tax
# Family law
# Company Law
# Constitutional Law
# Partnership firms
# Immigration Law
# Cyber Law
# Lok Adalat, legal Aid & PIL
# Forms
# Trademarks
# Woman issues
# Medico Legal
# Consumer laws
# Criminal laws
# Supreme Court Judgments


Published : May 22, 2012 | Author : YSRAO JUDGE
Category : Criminal law | Total Views : 4433 | Rating :

  
YSRAO JUDGE
Y.SRINIVASA RAO, M.A(English).,B.Ed.,LL.M.; Judicial Magistrate of I Class; Topper in LL.M
 

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.




1 2 3 4 5
Rate this article!     Poor
Excellent    

Most viewed articles in Criminal law category
The Power of The Magistrate Under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C
The Elements and Stages of a Crime
Dying Declaration-Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act
Confession under Indian Evidence Act
Rape Laws In India-Appropriate or not?
Duty of The Public Prosecutor In The Criminal Justice System
Change in definition of Rape in India
Anti - terrorism laws in India
Section 91(1) CrPc: An analysis of Constitutional Validity
Mens Rea in Statutory Offences
Whether Section 324 Of IPC Is Bailable Or Non-Bailable
Need on capital punishment in the context of rape
Experts Opinion and its admissibility and relevancy - Law of Evidence
Secondary Evidence
Common Intention And Common Object Under The Indian Penal Code 1860
Right To Anticipatory Bail
Most recent articles in Criminal law category
How a Defendant Grand Jury Testimony Can Be Used at Trial
Yakubs Death Punishment
Framing of a Law or Enforcement of a Law
Compensation: A Ray of Hope
Evidential Value of Private Reports in Court of Law
Intention an Integral Part of Crime
Nature and Scope of Plea Bargaining
Mercy Petition Boon or Bane
125 CrPC-Scope of Revision
Consequences of Prolonged Delays in Rape Trial
Crime and Violence need an Analysis
Notice Format u/s 41-A Crpc
Gender Sensitization and Rehabilitation of Rape Victims
Collective Violence
Custodial Violence in India
Compensatory Jurisprudence

Article Comments

Posted by Gulnar Raheem Khan on April 23, 2015
I am eager to know the rationale behind the rule 15/5 of Limitations act
1963, which allows that the time of absence of the defendant from India
be excluded from the time to be calculated for limitation

Posted by Adv.Manmohan sarda on April 03, 2014
Can insecticide act compound under what provision if any judgement about the same

Post Your Comments
Name

Email

Your comments

Note : Your email address is only visible to admin, other members / users cannot see it.

You can use following FXCodes


BOLD : [b]
Italic : [i]

[b] Legal Services India [/b] is a [i]nice website[/i].
[url= http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/ ]click here to visit.[/url]

Legal Services India is a nice website.
Click here to visit

 

Note : Currently, user comments are moderated and will be posted only after approval.



Welcome!
Please login or register a new free account.

Random Pick
framework of corporate criminal liability and sentencing. The Indian courts have only restricted themselves to imposing fine which merely encourages the corporations to commit fraud and settle by paying fines.

Statistics
» Total Articles
1380
» Total Authors
3991
» Total Views
15565083
» Total categories
40

Law Forum


Legal Articles

Lawyers in India- Click on a link below for legal Services

lawyers in Chennai
lawyers in Bangalore
lawyers in Hyderabad
lawyers in Cochin
lawyers in Pondicherry
lawyers in Guwahati
lawyers in Nashik

lawyers in Jaipur
lawyers in New Delhi
lawyers in Dimapur
lawyers in Agra
Noida lawyers
lawyers in Siliguri

For Mutual consent Divorce in Delhi

Ph no: 9650499965
For online Copyright Registration

Ph no: 9891244487
Law Articles

lawyers in Delhi
lawyers in Chandigarh
lawyers in Allahabad
lawyers in Lucknow
lawyers in Jodhpur
Faridabad lawyers

lawyers in Mumbai
lawyers in Pune
lawyers in Nagpur
lawyers in Ahmedabad
lawyers in Surat
Ghaziabad lawyers

lawyers in Kolkata
lawyers in Janjgir
lawyers in Rajkot
lawyers in Indore
lawyers in Ludhiana
Gurgaon lawyers

TOP

India's Most Trusted Online law library
Legal Services India is Copyrighted under the Registrar of Copyright Act ( Govt of India) 2000-2016
 ISBN No: 978-81-928510-1-3