The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed a criminal application seeking quashment of the proceedings arising from allegations relating to prohibited cotton seeds, observing that continuation of prosecution based solely on the statement of a co-accused, in the absence of any incriminating material from the applicants, would be the abuse of the process of law.
The case arose from an application filed to quash the Regular Criminal Case pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ralegaon, and the chargesheet invoking offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Seeds Act, 1968, the Seeds Rules, 1976, the Maharashtra Cotton Seeds (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale, and Fixation of Sale Price) Act, 2009, and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. During the pendency of the application, the first applicant expired and was deleted.
The prosecution case was that during a raid conducted by the Taluka Agricultural Officer at the residence of the main accused, prohibited cotton seed bags were seized. Upon inquiry, the main accused allegedly revealed that the seeds had been purchased from M/s Suraj Agro Agency, leading to a raid on the applicant’s shop. But no prohibited cotton seeds were recovered from the applicant.
After hearing both sides, the bench of Justice Pravin S. Patil noted that the applicant possesses the valid license for seeds and fertilizers and the seizure panchanama found no incriminating material from their premises. The court observed that in the absence of recovery of material highlighting involvement, prosecution cannot be sustained only on the statement of the co-accused.
Further, the court has held that the ingredients of cheating and forgery offenses under the IPC were not made out, as there is no allegation constituting preparation of a false document in the chargesheet. As regards the offenses under the other enactments, the bench observed that the mandatory statutory elements and procedures were not satisfied. In the context of the Seeds Act and Rules, the court reiterated that offenses punishable by less than three years’ imprisonment are non-cognizable and cannot be investigated by police authorities under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Holding that no offense was made out under the invoked provisions and the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be the abuse of the process of law, the court allowed the criminal application and quashed the regular criminal case.
Appearance
Advocate A. A. Dhawas for Applicants.
APP D. I. Charlewar for Respondent No.1/State
