http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1521-1522 of 2005

PETITIONER: S. Chinnasamy  

RESPONDENT: Seed Inspector, Coimbatore & Another                                             

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/09/2006

BENCH: S.B. SINHA & DALVEER BHANDARI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T 1.      S. Chinnasamy  (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1522/2005)

2.      R. Soundararajan                         (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1521/2005)

                                                       \005     Appellants Versus Seed Inspector, Coimbatore  & Another                                               ...     Respondents

Dalveer Bhandari, J.          These criminal appeals emanate from the judgment  of the High Court of Judicature of Madras dated  3.12.2004 by which the learned Single Judge of the High  Court has upheld the judgment of the Special Judge  (E.C./N.D.P.S. Act), Coimbatore dated 9.9.1997 for  violation of clauses 3(1), 8(a) and (b) and 18(1) of Seeds  (Control) Order, 1983 with reference to clauses (a), (h)  and (i) of sub-section 2 of the Section 3 punishable under  Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.  The Special Judge sentenced the appellants/accused to  undergo three months simple imprisonment and to pay a  fine of Rs.1000/- each on three counts.

       Brief facts which are imperative to dispose of these  appeals are recapitulated as under:-

       The Seed Inspector, Coimbatore, PW1, went for  inspection of the shop of appellant no. 1 on 15.5.1996.   According to him, the shop was open but there was no  responsible person available in the shop, therefore, the  Seed Inspector could not conduct the inspection on that  day though he waited there for about an hour.

       The Seed Inspector, on 25.10.1996 again had gone  to the shop of appellant no. 1, S. Chinnasamy, but  appellantno.1 was not there and appellant no. 2, R.  Soundarajan, his agent, was running the business of the  shop at that time.  According to the statement of PW 1,  the appellants were transacting business in pesticides,  fertilizers and seeds.  The Seed Inspector on inspection  found 2< kgs. of cotton seeds and 2 kgs. of tomato seeds  in the shop.  Appellant no. 1 had not obtained any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

licence for selling the seeds.  According to the Seed  Inspector P.W.1, neither the price list nor the index was  displayed in the shop.  Particulars of the seed varieties  were also not displayed.  No books, accounts or records  were maintained.  The above quantity of seeds found in  the shop was packed and sealed in the presence of  appellant no. 2, R. Soundarajan and the same was  entrusted to him with the instructions to the proprietor  to give his explanation on or before 30.10.1996.  The  Inspection Report was prepared and on the same  appellant no. 2, R. Soundarajan had appended his  signature.  The Bill Book - Exb.6 was also seized.  The  Bill book revealed that appellant no.1 had transacted  business in seeds without any valid permit.  The Seed  Inspector prepared the complaint on the instructions of  his superior officer, PW2, Thiru Isac Jesudas.

       The relevant part of the complaint reads as under:-         "The complainant is a notified Seed  Inspector, appointed under Section 12 and  empowered to act as per section 13 of the Seeds  (Control) Order, 1983.  His jurisdiction extends  over the entire Revenue Taluks of Coimbatore  North and Coimbatore South.  He is a Public  Servant by virtue of Notification No. S. O. 763 (e)  DT. 27.9.87 issued by the Govt. of India and is  empowered to institute prosecution.

       The accused (1) is a dealer of seeds doing  seed business at the address mentioned above,  which comes under the jurisdiction of this Court.   The accused (2) is an authorized sales person of  the accused (1).

       The Seed Inspector, Coimbatore on receipt of  reliable information visited the premises of the  accused on 25.10.1996.  At that time, the accused  (2) was present on the spot.  He was looking after  the business at the time of visit.

       During the course of inspection, the  following offences were noticed.

(1)     Seed business had been carried out  without obtaining a valid license. (2)     Stock / price list not maintained. (3)     Records not maintained.

The above defects have not been rectified  even after repeated instructions and reminders  since 15.5.96.  The explanations offered by the  accused are not satisfactory.

The above acts of the accused contravene  section 3, section (8) (a), section (9) and Section  18(1) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983.  Hence  the accused is punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii)  of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Hence, it is prayed that this Honorable Court  must be pleased to take up this case on file,  summon them and render justice.

Sd/-   Seed Inspector

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

Coimbatore"

       According to the prosecution, the incriminating  circumstances appearing in the evidence against the  appellants were unfolded to them in the form of a  questionnaire for the purpose of enabling them to  personally explain the same.  Appellant no.1 had stated  that he was dealing only in cement and not in seeds. He  further stated that the officials took him to the office,  threatened him and obtained his signature. Appellant no.  2, on his part, stated that he had nothing to do with the  shop in question and did not work in the shop of  appellant no.1.  The point for determination framed by  the trial court was whether the prosecution had proved  beyond all reasonable doubt the charges framed against  the accused.

To substantiate the charges against the appellants,  in the trial Court, PW 1, Thiru John Thadeus who was  working as the Seed Inspector and P.W. 2 Thiru Isac  Jesudas who was working as the Seed Inspection  Assistant Director were examined.  Exhibits P-1 to P-6  were produced.   The appellants were questioned under  Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.    

The Seed Inspector, PW 1, in his statement had  clearly stated that "I prohibited the sale of the seeds in  the shop and put them in a bag and sealed them and  handed over to the person (means appellant no. 2) in the  shop and obtained his signature.  Thereafter, I prepared  an inspection memo Exhibit P-1".    According to him, the  Seed Inspection Assistant Director, PW2 gave him  permission to file the case against the accused.   

The relevant portion of the statement given by PW 1  in his cross-examination regarding the fact that the  agricultural land belonged to appellant no. 1 and his  father-in-law, reads as under: "I cannot deny that he has properties at  Thadagam and Kothagiri which are the properties  of his father in law.  It is common that the land  owners used to buy the seeds and keep it for their  own use."

It may be pertinent to mention that the sale of seeds  to the public has not been proved by examining any of  the purchasers.

The trial court (The Presiding Officer, Essential  Commodities & NDPS Act Cases, Coimbatore) arrived at a  definite finding that evidence on record established that  Seed Inspector PW 1 had visited the shop of appellant no.  1 and found that the seeds were being sold by appellant  no. 2 as an agent of appellant no. 1 without any valid  license.   According to the trial court, on the basis of  evidence and documents on record, it could be concluded  that the appellants had violated Clauses 3(1), 8(a) and (b)  and 18(1) of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 issued  under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act  punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the said Act.

Clauses 3(1), 8(a) & (b) and 18(1) of the Seeds  (Control) Order, 1983 read as under: "3. Dealer to obtain licence.- (1) No person shall

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

carry on the business of selling, exporting or  importing seeds at any place except under and in  accordance with the terms and conditions of  licence granted to him under this order."

8. Dealers to display stock and price list.- Every  dealer of seeds shall display in his place of  business \026 (a)     the opening and closing stocks, on daily  basis, of different seeds held by him; (b)     a list indicating prices or rates of  different seeds."          

"18. Maintenance of records and submission of  returns, etc. \026 (1) Every dealer shall maintain  such books, accounts and records relating to his  business as may be directed by the State  Government."

The Special Court found the appellants guilty of the  aforesaid clauses of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 and  convicted them thereunder and sentenced each of the  appellants to undergo three months simple imprisonment  on three counts and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each on  three counts, in default to undergo one month of simple  imprisonment on each count.   The court also directed  that the sentence on each accused except the default  sentence shall run concurrently.    

The appellants, aggrieved by the said order of the  Special Judge for Essential Commodities / NDPS Act,  preferred a criminal appeal under Section 374 of the  Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the conviction  and sentence.

It has been submitted on behalf of appellant no. 1  that he was transacting business only in cement and not  in seeds and the seeds of cotton and tomato which were  kept in his shop were meant for personal use and not for  sale to the public.  This defence of appellant no. 1 has  been discarded by the courts below because appellant no.  1 had failed to produce any document showing the  survey number or the extent of land owned by him or his  father in law.  According to the impugned judgment, the  defence of appellant no. 1 is further falsified by Exb. P-6,  Bill Book, which revealed the sale of seeds to various  customers for a long time.

The appellants submitted that this was perhaps the  first case in the State of Tamil Nadu in which conviction  under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 had been  recorded, therefore, some leniency and indulgence should  be shown to them, particularly when a very small  quantity of the seeds meant for personal use was  recovered from the shop of appellant no. 1.

According to the High Court, acceptance of this  contention would set a wrong precedent.   The High  Court observed that with the definite purpose of bringing  out quality production, the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983  was brought into force.   Reporting of violation cannot be  viewed lightly, lest it would have serious repercussions  on the quality of the yield, affecting the public at large.    It is also mentioned in the impugned judgment that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

huge quantity of seeds had repeatedly been sold to the  public for more than 1= years without license.    According to the conclusion arrived at in the impugned  judgment of the High Court, the reasoning and findings  of the Special Judge were in conformity with the evidence  and material on record.   

The High Court, after consideration of the entire  evidence and documents on record, affirmed the findings  of the trial court.  The appellants, aggrieved by the  impugned judgment of the High Court, have preferred  these appeals before this Court.  The appellants have  highlighted serious procedural lapses in conducting the  entire case.  According to the appellants, the respondents  in their anxiety to convict the appellants, (because this  was the first case registered in the State of Tamil Nadu  for violation under the Seeds (Control) Order), had given  a total go-bye to the established procedure.  The  appellants also pointed out that, admittedly, Seed  Inspector, PW1, clearly stated in his statement that he  had taken the seeds from the shop of appellant no. 1, put  them in a bag and sealed them and handed over the  sealed bag to appellant no. 2.    The procedure which was  followed by the Seed Inspector is quite contrary to sub- clause (3) of Clause 13.  Clause 13(3) reads as under: "13(3) Where any seed is seized by an  Inspector under this clause, he shall forthwith  report the fact of such seizure to a Magistrate  whereupon the provisions of Sections 457 and 458  of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of  1974) shall, so far as may be, apply to the custody  and disposal of such seed."

According to sub-clause (3) of Clause 13, after  seizure, the Seed Inspector was under an obligation to  report the fact of the seizure to a Magistrate, whereupon  the provisions of Sections 457 and 458 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure shall apply to the custody and  disposal of such seeds.   This was admittedly not done by  the Seed Inspector.  The established procedure has been  flouted, therefore, any conviction based on such  prosecution evidence is unsustainable.

Admittedly, appellant no. 1, the proprietor of the  shop, was not there when the inspection was carried out.   The Seed Inspector ought not to have carried out the  inspection in the absence of appellant no.1.   

It was also submitted that the respondents have  failed to show any evidence that the appellants had ever  sold seeds in the market.  No purchaser of the seeds was  produced.  This fact also seriously affects the credibility  of the entire prosecution version.  It was submitted that  appellant no. 2 was not an agent of appellant no. 1, as  stated by the prosecution witnesses.  Appellant no. 2 was  in fact an uneducated daily wage earner of about 17  years of age.  He did not know the implication and  seriousness of the signature appended by him on the  inspection report.  The appellants submitted that it was  the first case registered in the State of Tamil Nadu for  violation under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 and the  sentence imposed by the courts below is  disproportionate, excessive and harsh.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

The appellants submitted that, including the period  of remission, they had undergone imprisonment of about  one month. According to them, the ends of justice would  be met if their sentence is reduced to the period already  undergone.

The learned counsel appearing for the State fairly  submitted that the State will have no objection in case  while maintaining the conviction, the sentence of the  appellants is reduced to the period already undergone.

The learned counsel for the State submitted that  this concession is made while keeping the following  factors in view: (i)     the appellant no.2 was a young boy of 17  years of age at the time of the  commission of the offence;

(ii)    a small quantity of seeds was seized; and

(iii)   this was the first case recorded in the  State of Tamil Nadu for violation under  the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983.   

In view of this submission of the learned counsel for the  State, we do not deem it appropriate to adjudicate and  give our findings on the various issues raised by the  counsel for the parties.

We have carefully perused the entire evidence and  documents on record and heard the learned counsel for  the parties at length.   On consideration of the totality of  the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in  view of the statement made by the learned counsel for  the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice  would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced  to the period already undergone by them.  The appellants  were released by this Court during the pendency of these  appeals and they are now not required to surrender.  The  fine as imposed by the trial court, if not already paid,  would be paid within four weeks from the date of this  judgment.  

These appeals are partly allowed and disposed of  accordingly.