Nizam Sarada

1

CC79/2015 ADA, Chirala Dt.29-06-2019

N THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

ONGOLE. Present: N.Sarada II-Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole Friday, this the 28th day of June, 2019 Calendar Case No. 79/2015 Between: The Assistant Director of Agriculture Chirala… Complainant

And

1.Devarapalli Malyagiridhar Reddy S/o Malyadri Reddy aged 44 D.No.10-10-69 GBC Road, Chirala Dealer

2.Sri Devarapally Malya Giridhar Reddy, aged 44 years S/o Malyadri Reddy, aged 44 years, H.No.10-16-8C Udayagiri Road, Kavali Nellore District

Producer and marketer...Accused/A1 & A2

This Criminal case is coming on 26-06-2019 for hearing before me in the presence of Asst., Public Prosecutor for State/Complainant and of Sri.Kola Siva Prasad Advocate for accused/A1 and A2 and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

// Judgment //

1. On 10-07-2014 at about 10-00 A.M l.W1 visited the firm of A1 to draw the seed sample. A notice form VI was issued to A1 informing his intention to draw the seed sample. From the available stock of 200 bags, ten bags were selected at random a quantity of above 1300 grams of seed drawn from the selected 10 bags with clean scoop and was divided into three equal parts each 400 grams and another part of 100 gram are transferred to polythene bag and kept in lab sample for moisture test.

Out of the three sample packets one seed sample packet was handed over to the authorized person of A1, 2nd portion of seed sample was intended as lab sample, 3rd portion of seed sample is intended as a referee sample which was retained with L.W1. Form-VIII was also prepared by L.W1 and a copy of it was served to authorized person of A1 under his acknowledge. A panchanama was drafted in presence of two mediators and same was acknowledged by the authorized person of A1.

2

CC79/2015 ADA, Chirala Dt.29-06-2019

The said lab sample covering letter with form V was sent to the Asst.

Director of Agriculture, Seed Testing Laboratory, Yemminur, Kurnool district through DTDC courier . The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Seed Testing

Laboratory Yemmiganur Kurnool District has communicated the test results in form VII which revealed that the paddy NLR-145 Seed of lot No.ND-5917-

A C& DA was found sub standard as the seed has got germination of 64% only without confirming the minimum limits of germination 80%. The

Agriculture officer and Seed Inspector Chirala Inspected the A1 firm on 18- 08-2014 and served copies of Form VII and result sheet received from the

Assistant Director of Agriculture, Seed Testing laboratory, Yemmiganur. The stock balances were verified by L.W1. No stock balance were available on that date pertaining to the substandard seed lot and hence no seed was seized.

L.W1 seized the original invoice of Sri Indira seeds 10-16-8c, Udayagiri road

Kavali, Seed Producer and marketer and Photostat copy of page No.7 of the seed Stock Register of A1 firm where the seed lot was entered . The mediatornama was conducted in the presence of L.W4 and L.W5. The seizure was reported to the Hon’ble Court and the permission was also obtained to keep the seized records for safe custody with the Agricultural officer and Seed

Inspector, Chirala from the Hon’ble court. Show cause notice was issued on

A1 and A2, and in response to the show cause notice issued on A1, A1 replied that he did not received any complaint from the farming community and requested not to initiate any legal action in this regard. A2 replied that the paddy seed variety NLR-145 he did not received any complaint from the farming university and seed certification results also received good.

Prosecution proposals were submitted to the Joint Director of Agriculture,

A.P. Hyderabad to accord permission produced in court of law against the accused on 21-10-2014. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Ongole accorded sanction to a letter to prosecute the accused A1 and A2 under Section 7(b) r/w 3

CC79/2015 ADA, Chirala Dt.29-06-2019

19(1) of Seed Act, 1966 and Sub Class ( C) of the clause 13 of Seeds (Control) order 1983. Therefore the accused violated the provisions U/sec.

7(b) r/w 19(1) of Seed Act, 1966.

3.This court took cognizance of offences u/sec.7(b) r/w Sec.19(1) of

Seeds Act and Sub Clause ( C) of Sec. 13 of Seeds Control Order against A1 and A2. After appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to them as required u/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused were examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec.7(b) r/w Sec.19(1) of Seeds Act were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The complaint was lodged in the year of 2015 on 07-09-2016 the accused were appeared and proceeded for 251 examination and posted for trial. The case is posted for time to time for summons of L.Ws 1 to 3. Finally on 27-02-2018 the evidence of L.Ws 1 to 3 is closed by this Hon’ble Court and posted for summons of L.ws 4 and 5. Finally on 14-05-2019 the evidence of L.Ws 4 and 5 closed by this Hon’ble court inspite of several adjournments are given to the prosecution. It seems that the complainant was not interested in bringing the witnesses for proving the guilt of the accused. The case was taken up in the year 2015. After lapse of 4 years not even single witness were examined and there is no plausible explanation for non bringing of witnesses.

As observed by Hon'ble Apex court and various Hon'ble High Courts in the case of Excise Sub-Inspector, Pamidi v. Mune Naik, (1979) 1 Andh WR

(HC) 405 by their Lordship CHENNAKESAV REDDY & MADHAVA

REDDDY held that ….

“though the accused remained present, on every hearing, the case underwent as many as twelve adjournments and the prosecution had failed to produce its witnesses and, under these circumstances, 4

CC79/2015 ADA, Chirala Dt.29-06-2019

the Court held that the complainant had no interest whatsoever in the matter and was constrained to infer that the prosecution had no witness on their behalf and then closed the case”

The same view was supported by many judgments. In the

case of The State (Tamil Nadu) vs Veerappan And Ors. Reported in AIR 1980 Mad 260 and State of Madh. Pra. v. Kaluthawar, reported in 1972 Cri LJ 1639...

Hon'ble Court held that “ "It was the duty of the prosecution to

make necessary arrangements for the production of its witnesses. The

Police must always remember that it has got a duty to the court and they cannot just send a challan and think that the rest will be done by the court. When nobody appeared in the court to inform what the reason was for non-appearance of the witnesses, the court could legitimately come to the conclusion that the police was not very serious in prosecuting the offence which was a minor one. Under

Section 245, the Magistrate can record an order of acquittal if there is no evidence to hold the accused guilty. If the prosecution did not take proper steps to produce the witnesses, or ask the court to give them time to do the same, or to issue fresh summons, the court was not bound to fix another date. The police has a duty towards the citizen.

When the accused is brought before the court and the prosecuting department does not take any steps it will be an abuse of the process of the court to continue the trial. Bringing a person before the court accusing him of some offence is a serious matter and however petty the offence may be, the prosecuting department, must do its duty towards the accused as well as the court. When once the accused is challaned there is no privilege given to the police to remain absent".

In another case State of Gujarat v. Bava Bhadya reported in

(1962)'2 Cri LJ 537 (2) Hon'ble Court held that....

“ Where a charge Is framed In a warrant case on police report, if owing to the failure of the prosecution to produce their witnesses and owing also to the failure of the prosecution to make full endeavour to serve the summonses according to the provisions contained in Sections 69, 70 and 71, Cr. P. C., 1890, there is no 5

CC79/2015 ADA, Chirala Dt.29-06-2019

evidence before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can acquit the accused under Section 251A (11)."

In another case State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti reported in

1980 Mad LJ 138:

“ a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court referring to the decisions in State of Mysore v. Narasimha Gowda (1964) 2 Mys LJ 241: (AIR 1965 Mys 167) and the State of Mysore v. Abdul Hameed Khan (1969) 1 Mys

LJ 4: (1970 Cri LJ 112 (Mys)), observed that the real distinction between the two decisions is as to whether there was remissness and want of diligence on the part of the prosecuting agency in producing the witnesses before the Court and therefore the principle laid down in Abdul Hameed Khan's case applied to the facts of the case with which the Division Bench was concerned. We may riots here that in Abdul Hameed Khan's case, it was found on the facts that the prosecution was not at all diligent as the non-bailable warrants issued to the witnesses had neither been served nor returned to the court by the concerned police and it was therefore held that where the prosecution was not diligent in producing its witnesses and had failed to serve the bailable warrants on the witnesses and return the same the Magistrate would be justified in refusing to grant an adjournment and to proceed to acquit the accused on the material on record. We may note here that in State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti 1980 MLJ 138 the Division Bench was dealing with a summons case instituted on a police report.

In the case of Bihar State Small Industires Corporation Vs

state of Bihar reported in 1986 (1) Crimes 409 Hon'ble Court held that....

“ if the presence of the witnesses could not be secured and the prosecution also either on account or pronounced negligence or recalcitrance does not produce the witnesses after the court had given is sufficient time and opportunity to do so, then the court, being left with no other alternative would be justified in acquitting the accused for want of evidence to prove the prosecution case under section 248 of Crpc, in the case of warrant cases instituted on a police report and under section 255(1) Code of Criminal

Procedure in summons cases”

In all the cases supra Hon'ble Courts observed that speedy justice is a fundamental right of an accused person. In the present case on hand accusation has levelled against the 6

CC79/2015 ADA, Chirala Dt.29-06-2019

accused in the year of 2014, from then not even single witness examined.

6.Therefore this court feels that L.Ws 1 to 5 evidence is closed and proceeded for further step. Since there is no material evidence available on record 313 examination was dispensed. Heard for the defense counsel. In view of the non material available on record the accused are acquitted for the above offence.

7.In the result, Accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 7(b) r/w 19(1) of Seeds Act and as such they are acquitted u/ sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case hence no specific order passed.

Typed to my dictation to the personal Assistant corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 28 th day of June, 2019

Sd/-N.Sarada

II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class Ongole // APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // -NIL-

Sd/-N.Sarada

II-A.J.F.M.C

Ongole // True copy //

II-Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I-Class Ongole 7

CC79/2015 ADA, Chirala Dt.29-06-2019

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN CC.NO. 79/2015 ON THE FILE OF

II-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ONGOLE.

1. Date of offence: 10-07-2014

2. Date of Complaint/report : 08-01-2015

3. Date of appearance of accused : --

4. Date of release of accused on bail : ---

5. Date of commencement of trial : ---

6. Date of closure of the trial : ---

7. Date of judgment : 28-06-2019 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Complainant : State : The Assistant. Director of Agriculture , Chirala

9. Description of the accused :-

1. Devarapalli Malyagiridhar Reddy S/o Malyadri Reddy aged 44 D.No.10-10-69 GBC Road, Chirala Dealer

2. Sri Devarapally Malya Giridhar Reddy, aged 44 years S/o Malyadri Reddy, aged 44 years, H.No.10-16-8C Udayagiri Road, Kavali Nellore District Producer and marketer…. A1 and A2

10. Offence/charge:u/sec.7(b) r/w 19(1) of Seeds Act against A1 and A2

11. Plea of accused : Not guilty

12. Finding of the Court : Found Not Guilty

13. Sentence or Order :

In the result, Accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 7(b) r/w 19(1) of Seeds Act and as such they are acquitted u/ sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-

A Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case hence no specific order passed.

14. Explanation for the delay :

The case was taken on file on 13-01-2015 for the offence u/sec 7(b) r/w 19(1) of Seeds act. On 03-11-2015 copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C and on 07-09-2016 accused were examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation for the offence U/ 8

CC79/2015 ADA, Chirala Dt.29-06-2019

sec.7(b) r/w 19(1) of Seeds act against accused were read over and explained to them in Telugu language for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case is posted for summons of L.Ws 1 to 3.

The case is posted for time to time for summons of L.Ws 1 to 3. Finally on 27-02-2018 the evidence of L.Ws 1 to 3 are closed by this Hon’ble court in spite of several adjournments complainant did not turn up to adduce evidence.

Hence, the evidence of L.Ws 1 to 3 is closed by this court and posted for summons of L.Ws 4 and 5. On 14-05-2019 the evidence of L.Ws 4 and 5 also closed by this Hon’ble court and hence, prosecution evidence is closed and 313 dispensed and posted for Judgment. On 17-06-2019 complainant filed a petiton and the same is allowed the evidence of L.Ws 4 and 5 is reopened to produce the evidence by next adjournment. On 26-06-2019 Hon’ble court allowing the recalled petition by imposing conditional order. Inspite conditional order also complainant did not turn up. Hence, the evidence of

L.Ws 4 and 5 is closed by this court and posted for Judgment. On 28-06-2019

Judgment pronounced, acquitting the accused. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-N.Sarada

II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole.

Copy Submitted to The Hon'ble I Addl. District Judge, Ongole for favour of information. Copy to The Superintendent of Police, Ongole for information.

// True copy //

II-Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I-Class Ongole 9

CC79/2015 ADA, Chirala Dt.29-06-2019

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, ONGOLE.

Present: N.Sarada

II-Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole Monday this the 16th day of March , 2020 Calendar Case No. 937/2015

Between:

The Asst. Director of Agriculture (Regular) Markapur rep.by Sri.K.I Sudharshan Raju M.SC (Ag) S/o Asirvadam aged 49 years… Complainant

And

1.M/s.Sai ram Seeds, Markapur Proprietor Late Sri.Bhavanam Venkat Reddy Died Resident of Tarlubadu village and mandal

2.M/s Jaya lakshmi Seed Agencies Proprietor Sri Kesari Prakasa Reddy S/o Sri.K.Koti Reddy, aged 48 years near Sivaiah stupam, Vinukonda Guntur District

3.M/s Navabharath Seeds Private Limited Represented by Sri.P.V.S.Gupta S/o late Sri.P.Nagaiah aged 52 years H.No.8-2-293/82/A/714 & 714/I, 3rd floor Silver Square, Opp to Charoma show room Road No.36, Jubilee Hills

Hyderabad ...Accused/A1 to A3

This Criminal case is coming on 06-03-2020 for hearing before me in the presence of Asst., Public Prosecutor for State/Complainant and of Sri.M.Raghavendra Reddy counsel for accused/A1 to A3 and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E M T //

1.This complaint is filed by the complainant i.e., The Assistant Director of Agricultural (Regular) Markapur, against the accused/A1 to A3 under section 7(b) r/w 19 of Seeds Act.

2.Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

A1 is the dealer and A2 is the distributor and A3 is the producer of the sub standard seed. On 23-06-2014 the Agricultural officer visited the A1 seeds shop and drawn the sample of castor seed duly following the procedure laid down in schedule-I of the seeds Act, 1966.

The stock position at the time of drawing of sample is 40 kgs. The 1st portion of the sample 2 was dispatched to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, seed testing laboratory, Yemmiganur

Kurnool District. The 2nd portion of the sample was handed over to the dealer under cover of mediatornama. The 3rd portion of the seed sample was constitutes referee sample is retained with seed inspector, Markapur for submitting the same to the higher authorities that is Assistant

Director of Agriculture(Regular), Markapur for safe custody. After analysis Assistant Director of Agriculture, seed testing laboratory Yemmiganur kurnool district has communicated the analysis report in form-VII informing that the sample of castor is having 57% of germination against prescribed minimum standards of 70% of germination. The form VII was served to the representative of the dealer on 31-07-2014 by the Seed Inspector. A show cause notice calling for explanation why suitable action as per the seeds Act, 1966 should not be taken against the distributor and producer of sub standard seed. In response to the show cause notice issued by the Agricultural officer, Markapur the 2nd and 3rd accused were submitted their replies and the same were received by Agricultural officer, Markapur on 19-8-2014 and 23-08-2014 respectively. The 2nd accused requested to send the referee sample to the central seed testing laboratory. The referee sample was sent for reanalysis. The Director, Central Seed Testing laboratory, Varanasi communicated the analysis report to the Hon’ble court in which the said

Castor seed has only 58% germination against the prescribed minimum of 70%. As the castor seed is failed in reanalysis also the Agricultural officer, Markapur requested the Senior Asst.

Public prosecutor, Ongole for according legal opinion to launch prosecution against the accused. Accordingly Senior Asst. Public Prosecutor Ongole has granted permission to prosecute the accused. The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture (AP), Hyderabad instructed to file the seed cases without waiting for the prosecution proposals. Complainant submits the Hon’ble court that the accused are liable to be punished under the above mentioned sections as they are producing, distributing, and selling sub standard seeds.

3.This court took cognizance of offences u/sec. 7(b) r/w sec.19 of Seeds Act, 1966 against

A1 to A3. After appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to them as required u/sec.207 Cr.P.C. The case against A1 is abated.

3

4. The accused were examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation for the offence u/sec.7(b) r/w Sec.19 of Seeds Act, 1966 read over and explained to the accused/A2 and A3 in Telugu language for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The complaint was lodged in the year of 2015 on 14-09-2015 the accused were appeared and copies of documents were furnished to him and proceeded for 251 examination on 13-12- 2016 and posted for summons to L.Ws 1 to 3. During the course of trial the case is adjourned for time to time for summons of L.Ws 1 to 3. The case is adjourned from time to time for summons of L.w1 to L.W3. Finally on 05-02-2020 the L.W1 to L.W3 were closed by this

Hon’ble court and posted for summons of L.W4. On 28-02-2020 the evidence of L.W4 was

closed by this Hon’ble court and 313 examination dispensed and posted for Judgment.

6. It seems that the complainant was not interested in bringing the witnesses for proving the guilt of the accused. The case was taken up in the year 2015. After lapse of 5 years, not even single witness were examined and there is no plausible explanation for non bringing of witnesses. As observed by Hon'ble Apex court and various Hon'ble High Courts in the case of

Excise Sub-Inspector, Pamidi v. Mune Naik, (1979) 1 Andh WR (HC) 405 by their

Lordship CHENNAKESAV REDDY & MADHAVA REDDDY held that “though the accused remained present, on every hearing, the case underwent as many as twelve adjournments and the prosecution had failed to produce its witnesses and, under these circumstances, the Court held that the complainant had no interest whatsoever in the matter and was constrained to infer that the prosecution had no witness on their behalf and then closed the case”

The same view was supported by many judgments. In the case of The State (Tamil

Nadu) vs Veerappan And Ors. Reported in AIR 1980 Mad 260 and State of Madh. Pra. v.

Kaluthawar, reported in 1972 Cri LJ 1639...

Hon'ble Court held that "It was the duty of the prosecution to make necessary

arrangements for the production of its witnesses. The Police must always remember that it has got a duty to the court and they cannot just send a challan and think that the rest will be done by the court. When nobody appeared in the court to inform what the 4 reason was for non-appearance of the witnesses, the court could legitimately come to the conclusion that the police was not very serious in prosecuting the offence which was a minor one. Under Section 245, the Magistrate can record an order of acquittal if there is no evidence to hold the accused guilty. If the prosecution did not take proper steps to produce the witnesses, or ask the court to give them time to do the same, or to issue fresh summons, the court was not bound to fix another date. The police has a duty towards the citizen. When the accused is brought before the court and the prosecuting department does not take any steps it will be an abuse of the process of the court to continue the trial. Bringing a person before the court accusing him of some offence is a serious matter and however petty the offence may be, the prosecuting department, must do its duty towards the accused as well as the court. When once the accused is challaned there is no privilege given to the police to remain absent".

In another case State of Gujarat v. Bava Bhadya reported in (1962)'2 Cri LJ 537

(2) Hon'ble Court held that....

“ Where a charge Is framed In a warrant case on police report, if owing to the failure of the prosecution to produce their witnesses and owing also to the failure of the prosecution to make full endeavour to serve the summonses according to the provisions contained in Sections 69, 70 and 71, Cr. P. C., 1890, there is no evidence before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can acquit the accused under Section 251A (11)."

In another case State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti reported in 1980 Mad LJ

138:

“ a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court referring to the decisions in State of

Mysore v. Narasimha Gowda (1964) 2 Mys LJ 241: (AIR 1965 Mys 167) and the State of

Mysore v. Abdul Hameed Khan (1969) 1 Mys LJ 4: (1970 Cri LJ 112 (Mys)), observed that the real distinction between the two decisions is as to whether there was remissness and want of diligence on the part of the prosecuting agency in producing the witnesses before the Court and therefore the principle laid down in Abdul Hameed Khan's case applied to the facts of the case with which the Division Bench was concerned. We may riots here that in Abdul Hameed

Khan's case, it was found on the facts that the prosecution was not at all diligent as the non- bailable warrants issued to the witnesses had neither been served nor returned to the court by the concerned police and it was therefore held that where the prosecution was not diligent in producing its witnesses and had failed to serve the bailable warrants on the witnesses and return the same the Magistrate would be justified in refusing to grant an adjournment and to proceed to acquit the accused on the material on record. We may note here that in State of Karnataka 5 v. Subramania Setti 1980 MLJ 138 the Division Bench was dealing with a summons case instituted on a police report.

In the case of Bihar State Small Industires Corporation Vs state of Bihar

reported in 1986 (1) Crimes 409 Hon'ble Court held that....

“ if the presence of the witnesses could not be secured and the prosecution also either on account or pronounced negligence or recalcitrance does not produce the witnesses after the court had given is sufficient time and opportunity to do so, then the court, being left with no other alternative would be justified in acquitting the accused for want of evidence to prove the prosecution case under section 248 of

Crpc, in the case of warrant cases instituted on a police report and under section 255(1) Code of Criminal Procedure in summons cases”

In all the cases supra Hon'ble Courts observed that speedy justice is a fundamental right of an accused person. In the present case on hand accusation has levelled against the accused in the year of 2015, from then not even single witness examined. Several opportunities were given to the complainant and witnesses, but they did not come forward to adduce their evidence. Hence, the prosecution failed to proceed this case beyond all reasonable doubt.

7.Therefore this court feels that the evidence of L.W1 to L.W4 are closed and proceeded for further step. Since there is no material evidence available on record 313 examination was dispensed. Heard for the defense counsel. In view of the non material available on record the accused are acquitted for the above offence.

8.In the result, Accused/A2 &A3 were found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec.

7(b) r/w Sec.19 Seeds Act and as such they are acquitted u/sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this

Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case hence no specific order passed. The case against A1 is abated on 09-12-2015

Typed to my dictation to the personal Assistant corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 16 th day of March, 2020

Sd/-N.Sarada

II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class Ongole 6 // APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // For prosecution:For defence:

NILNIL

Exhibits marked

-NIL-

Material Objects

-NIL-

Sd/-N.Sarada

II-A.J.F.M.C,

OGL 7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN CC.NO. 937/2015 THE FILE OF II-ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ONGOLE.

1. Date of offence: 23-06-2014

2. Date of Complaint/report : 10-09-2015

3. Date of appearance of accused : --

4. Date of release of accused on bail : ---

5. Date of commencement of trial : ---

6. Date of closure of the trial : ---

7. Date of judgment : 16-03-2020 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Complainant :Assistant Director of Agriculture Markapur

9. Description of the accused :-

1.M/s.Sai ram Seeds, Markapur Proprietor Late Sri.Bhavanam Venkat Reddy Died Resident of Tarlubadu village and mandal

2.M/s Jaya lakshmi Seed Agencies Proprietor Sri Kesari Prakasa Reddy S/o Sri.K.Koti Reddy, aged 48 years near Sivaiah stupam, Vinukonda Guntur District

3.M/s Navabharath Seeds Private Limited Represented by Sri.P.V.S.Gupta S/o late Sri.P.Nagaiah aged 52 years H.No.8-2-293/82/A/714 & 714/I, 3rd floor Silver Square, Opp to Charoma show room Road No.36, Jubilee Hills

Hyderabad ...Accused/A1 to A3

10. Offence/charge: 7(b) r/w 19 of Seeds Act, 1966

11. Plea of accused : Not guilty

12. Finding of the Court : Found Not Guilty

13. Sentence or Order :

In the result, Accused/A2 &A3 were found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 7(b) r/w Sec.19 Seeds Act and as such they are acquitted u/sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case hence no specific order passed. The case against A1 is abated on 09-12-2015

14. Explanation for the delay :

8

The case was taken on file on 09-12-2015 for the offence u/sec. 7(b) r/w19 of Seeds Act.

The case against A1 is abated and on 09-12-2015 copies of documents were furnished to the accused/A2 and A3 as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C and on 13-12-2016 accused were examined

U/sec.251 Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation for the offence U/sec 7(b) r/w 19 of Seeds

Act against the accused were read over and explained to them in Telugu language for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial the case is adjourned for time to time for summons of L.Ws 1 to 3. The case is posted for time to time for summons of L.Ws 1 to 3. On 05-02-2020 the evidence of L.W1 to L.W3 were closed by this court and posted for summons of L.W4 . Finally on 28-02-2020 the evidence of

L.W4 were closed by this court and posted for Judgment as complainant did not turn up to proceed the case. Hence, the evidence is closed in the interest of justice and 313 Cr.P.C examination dispensed with and posted for Judgment. On 16-03-2020 Judgment pronounced by acquitting the accused. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-N.Sarada

II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole.

Copy Submitted to The Hon'ble I Addl. District Judge, Ongole for favour of information. Copy to The Superintendent of Police, Ongole for information.

9 // True copy //

II-Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I-class Ongole // True copy //

Spl.JMFC, Mobile Court FAC::II-Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I-Class Ongole 10

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, ONGOLE.

Present: N.Sarada

II-Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole Monday this the 16th day of March , 2020 Calendar Case No. 123/2015 Between: State:Government Represented by The Asst. Director of Agriculture (Regular) Parchur… Complainant

And

1.M/s Sai Seetharama Traders, Cherukuru D.No.2-108C, Main Road, Cherukuru Rep. By its Responsible person Sri.Pokuri Sanjeeva Rao S/o Seethramaiah

2.M/s Desu Veeraiah and sons D.No.5-425(D), Desu Plaza, 1st floor, North by pass road, Ongole Rep. By its Responsible person Sri. Desu Srinivasa Rao S/o Venkateswawrlu Aged 44 years

3.M/s Dasarath Prasad fertilizers private limited Nujuveedu road, Remalle village Bapulapadu mandal, Hanuman junction

Krishna District ... Accused/A1 to A3

This Criminal case is coming on 06-03-2020 for hearing before me in the presence of Asst., Public Prosecutor for State/Complainant and of Sri.K.Anji Reddy counsel for accused/ A1 to A3 and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E M T //

1.This complaint is filed by the complainant i.e., The Assistant Director of Agricultural (Regular) Parchur, against the accused/A1 to A3 under section 19(a) r/w Sec.7 of E.C.Act, 1955.

2.Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

The Fertilizer inspector, Mandal Agricultural Officer, parchur has inspected the premises of A1 firm and drawn the sample of 22.0.11 mixture having batch No.DPF 01/2014 on 21-01-2014 as per the procedure laid down in fertilizer control order, 1985 and sent for analysis to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Fertilizer control Laboratory Anantapur through the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Fertilizer Coding center, Hyderabad. The Assistant 2

Director of Agriculture Control laboratory, Anantapur analyzed the sample and communicated the analytical report vide Form-L duly declaring the sample as non standard as the sample is not according to specification and fails in total Nitrogen and WSK20 contents. The copy of analysis report was served to the dealer on 10-03-2014 on proper acknowledgment.

Immediately after the receipt of the analytical report from the FCO, laboratory Anathapur which was declared as Non standard. The accused were served with show cause notices on 10- 03-2014 and 12-03-2014 with a direction to submit their explanation within 7 days and their explanations from A1 and A2 were received within time and the accused/A3 has not responded to our show cause notice so far. Subsequently the dealer has requested for reanalysis. As per the request of the dealer the sample of 22.0.11 and the referee sample available within the

Assistant Director of Agriculture, Parchur who is the notified authority under FCO has been sent for reanalysis along with prescribed fee of Rs.1000/- in favour of Addl. Director of

Agriculture, Hyderabad and relevant forms were submitted to the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad which in turn has been sent the sample to the analytical chemist, Regional Fertilizer Control Laboratory Kalyani Nadia. The said sample was again declared as non standard in the referral analysis also(Copy of the reanalysis is enclosed herewith)

As such A2 and A3 are liable for punishment under clause 19(a) of Fertilizer Control

Order, 1985 r/w Sec. 7 of E.C.Act for selling, distribution and manufacturing of non standard mixture fertilizer 22.0.11

3.This court took cognizance of offences u/sec. 19(a) of FCO, r/w sec.7 of E.C.Act against A1 to A3. After appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to them as required u/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused were examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation for the offence u/sec.19(a) of FCO, r/w Sec.7 of E.C.Act are read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

5.The complaint was lodged in the year of 2015 on 09-11-2015 the accused were appeared and proceeded for 251 examination on and posted for trial and issue summons to L.Ws 1 to 3.

During the course of trial the case is adjourned for time to time for summons of L.Ws 1 to 3.

Finally On 04-02-2020 the evidence of L.W1 to L.W3 were closed by this court and posted for summons of L.W4 to L.w6. The case is adjourned from time to time for summons of L.ws 4 to L.W6. Finally on 28-02-2020 inspite of conditional order the complainant did not turn up to proceed the case it shows the complainant not interest to proceed the case. Hence, the evidence of L.Ws 4 to 6 were closed by this Hon’ble court and 313 dispensed with and posted for

Judgment.

6. It seems that the complainant was not interested in bringing the witnesses for proving the guilt of the accused. The case was taken up in the year 2015. After lapse of 5 years,not even single witness were examined and there is no plausible explanation for non bringing of witnesses. As observed by Hon'ble Apex court and various Hon'ble High Courts in the case of

Excise Sub-Inspector, Pamidi v. Mune Naik, (1979) 1 Andh WR (HC) 405 by their

Lordship CHENNAKESAV REDDY & MADHAVA REDDDY held that “though the accused remained present, on every hearing, the case underwent as many as twelve adjournments and the prosecution had failed to produce its witnesses and, under these circumstances, the Court held that the complainant had no interest whatsoever in the matter and was constrained to infer that the prosecution had no witness on their behalf and then closed the case”

The same view was supported by many judgments. In the case of The State (Tamil

Nadu) vs Veerappan And Ors. Reported in AIR 1980 Mad 260 and State of Madh. Pra. v.

Kaluthawar, reported in 1972 Cri LJ 1639...

Hon'ble Court held that "It was the duty of the prosecution to make necessary

arrangements for the production of its witnesses. The Police must always remember that it has got a duty to the court and they cannot just send a challan and think that the rest will be done by the court. When nobody appeared in the court to inform what the reason was for non-appearance of the witnesses, the court could legitimately come to the conclusion that the police was not very serious in prosecuting the offence which 4 was a minor one. Under Section 245, the Magistrate can record an order of acquittal if there is no evidence to hold the accused guilty. If the prosecution did not take proper steps to produce the witnesses, or ask the court to give them time to do the same, or to issue fresh summons, the court was not bound to fix another date. The police has a duty towards the citizen. When the accused is brought before the court and the prosecuting department does not take any steps it will be an abuse of the process of the court to continue the trial. Bringing a person before the court accusing him of some offence is a serious matter and however petty the offence may be, the prosecuting department, must do its duty towards the accused as well as the court. When once the accused is challaned there is no privilege given to the police to remain absent".

In another case State of Gujarat v. Bava Bhadya reported in (1962)'2 Cri LJ 537 (2)

Hon'ble Court held that....

“ Where a charge Is framed In a warrant case on police report, if owing to the failure of the prosecution to produce their witnesses and owing also to the failure of the prosecution to make full endeavour to serve the summonses according to the provisions contained in Sections 69, 70 and 71, Cr. P. C., 1890, there is no evidence before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can acquit the accused under Section 251A (11)."

In another case State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti reported in 1980 Mad LJ

138:

“ a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court referring to the decisions in State of

Mysore v. Narasimha Gowda (1964) 2 Mys LJ 241: (AIR 1965 Mys 167) and the State of

Mysore v. Abdul Hameed Khan (1969) 1 Mys LJ 4: (1970 Cri LJ 112 (Mys)), observed that the real distinction between the two decisions is as to whether there was remissness and want of diligence on the part of the prosecuting agency in producing the witnesses before the Court and therefore the principle laid down in Abdul Hameed Khan's case applied to the facts of the case with which the Division Bench was concerned. We may riots here that in Abdul Hameed

Khan's case, it was found on the facts that the prosecution was not at all diligent as the non- bailable warrants issued to the witnesses had neither been served nor returned to the court by the concerned police and it was therefore held that where the prosecution was not diligent in producing its witnesses and had failed to serve the bailable warrants on the witnesses and return the same the Magistrate would be justified in refusing to grant an adjournment and to proceed to acquit the accused on the material on record. We may note here that in State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti 1980 MLJ 138 the Division Bench was dealing with a summons case instituted on a police report.

5

In the case of Bihar State Small Industries Corporation Vs state of Bihar

reported in 1986 (1) Crimes 409 Hon'ble Court held that....

“ if the presence of the witnesses could not be secured and the prosecution also either on account or pronounced negligence or recalcitrance does not produce the witnesses after the court had given is sufficient time and opportunity to do so, then the court, being left with no other alternative would be justified in acquitting the accused for want of evidence to prove the prosecution case under section 248 of

Crpc, in the case of warrant cases instituted on a police report and under section 255(1) Code of Criminal Procedure in summons cases”

In all the cases supra Hon'ble Courts observed that speedy justice is a fundamental right of an accused person. In the present case on hand accusation has levelled against the accused in the year of 2015, from then not even single witness examined. Several opportunities were given to the complainant and witnesses, but they did not come forward to adduce their evidence. Hence, the prosecution failed to proceed this case beyond all reasonable doubt.

7.Therefore this court feels that the evidence of L.W1 to L.W6 are closed and proceeded for further step. Since there is no material evidence available on record 313 examination was dispensed. Heard for the defense counsel. In view of the non material available on record the accused are acquitted for the above offence.

8.In the result, Accused/A1 to A3 were found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec.

19(a) of Fertilizer control order, 1985 r/w Sec.7 of E.C.Act, 1955 and as such they are acquitted u/sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case hence no specific order passed.

Typed to my dictation to the personal Assistant corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 16 th day of March, 2020

Sd/-N.Sarada

II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class Ongole // APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // For prosecution:For defence:

NIL NIL

Exhibits marked

-NIL-

Material Objects

-NIL- Sd/-N.Sarada

II-A.J.F.M.C, OGL

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN CC.NO. 123/2015 THE FILE OF II-ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ONGOLE.

1. Date of offence: 21-01-2014

2. Date of Complaint/report : 21-01-2015

3. Date of appearance of accused : --

4. Date of release of accused on bail : ---

5. Date of commencement of trial : ---

6. Date of closure of the trial : ---

7. Date of judgment : 16-03-2020 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Complainant :Assistant Director of Agricultureparchur

9. Description of the accused :-

1. M/s Sai Seetharama Traders, Cherukuru D.No.2-108C, Main Road, Cherukuru Rep. By its Responsible person Sri.Pokuri Sanjeeva Rao S/o Seethramaiah

2.M/s Desu Veeraiah and sons D.No.5-425(D), Desu Plaza, 1st floor, North by pass road, Ongole Rep. By its Responsible person Sri. Desu Srinivasa Rao S/o Venkateswawrlu Aged 44 years

3.M/s Dasarath Prasad fertilizers private limited Nujuveedu road, Remalle village Bapulapadu mandal, Hanuman junction

Krishna District ... Accused/A1 to A3

10. Offence/charge: 19(a) of Fertilizer control order, 1985 r/w Sec.7 of E.C.Act

11. Plea of accused : Not guilty

12. Finding of the Court : Found Not Guilty

13. Sentence or Order :

In the result, Accused/A1 to A3 were found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec.

19(a) of Fertilizer control order, 1985 r/w Sec.7 of E.C.Act, 1955 and as such they are acquitted u/sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case hence no specific order passed.

14. Explanation for the delay :

7

The case was taken on file on 23-01-2015 for the offence u/sec. 19(a) of FCO r/w Sec.7 of E.C.Act. On 23-02-2015 copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required

U/sec.207 Cr.P.C and on 09-11-2015 accused were examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation for the offence U/sec 19(a) of FCO and Sec.7 of E.C.Act against accused were read over and explained to them in Telugu language for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial the case is adjourned for time to time for summons of L.Ws 1 to 3. On 04-02-2020 the evidence of L.W1 to L.W3 were closed by this court and posted for summons of L.W4 to L.w6. The case is adjourned from time to time for summons of L.ws 4 to L.W6. Finally on 28-02-2020 inspite of several conditional order the complainant did not turn up to proceed the case it show that the complainant not interested to proceed the case. Hence, L.W4 to 6 evidence closed by this

Hon’ble court and 313 Cr.P.C examination dispensed with and posted for Judgment. On 16-

03-2020 Judgment pronounced by acquitting the accused. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-N.Sarada

II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole.

Copy Submitted to The Hon'ble I Addl. District Judge, Ongole for favour of information. Copy to The Superintendent of Police, Ongole for information.

// True copy //

II-Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I-Class Ongole 8 // True copy //

II-Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I-class Ongole 9 // True copy //

Spl.JMFC, Mobile Court FAC::II-Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I-Class Ongole

1

CC.No.144 of 2005 of Drugs Inspector, Ongole

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, ONGOLE

Present :- Smt.N.Sarada

II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole Thursday, this the 23rd day of November, 2017 C.C.No.144/2005 Between The State of Andhra Pradesh

Represented by Drugs Inspector, Ongole..... Complainant

And

1. M/s Maan pharmaceuticals Limited Plot No.1, G.I.d.c. Phase-II, Modhera Road Mehsana North Gujarat Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director—A2

2. Naranbhai N.patel, S/o Nrrotam Bhai patel, Aged 58 years, Shantikunj Society urbank Road, NR High way Road Mehsana-384 002

Chairman and Director of A1 firm...Accused

This case coming on 23-11-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Addl. Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and of B.Satyanarayana Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.This case is being a complaint filed by the complainant for the offence U/sec. 18(a) (i) r/w Sec.16 punishable U/sec. 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 . On perusal of the record NBW was issued against the accused and the same was pending till today. Complainant has no interest to prosecute his case according to rule 235(2) of Criminal Rules of Practice. The complainant has pay Batta for 75 M.P for every 15 days.

On perusal of the record complainant did not paid any batta or continuation batta. Hence, complaint is dismissed accordingly the accused is discharged U/sec. 256(1) of Cr.P.C. The case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time

Dictated to the Shorthand writer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 23rd day of November, 2017

II- Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate Ongole 2

CC.No.144 of 2005 of Drugs Inspector, Ongole

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined -NIL-

Material Objects for prosecution -NIL-

II AJFCM

Ongole

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. MAGISTRATE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD CUM- II ADDL.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ONGOLE.

Present : Smt.N.Sarada Prl.Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-Cum- II-Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole Thursday, this the 19th day of March 2020 JC.C.No.24/2020. Between: State :Sub-Inspector of Police, of Ponnalur P.S… Complainant

V/s

Nelluru Sai Srimanth Reddy S/o Thirupathi Reddy Aged 16 years, near YSR Statue, Rudrakota village Kavali mandal, SPSR Nellore District....juvenile conflict with law

This case is coming up on 19-03-2020 for summons of Juvenile and of Sri.Addl.Public Prosecutor Advocate for Complainant and the juvenile appeared in person and upon perusing the entire material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

// O R D E R //

Juvenile conflict with law called present. Copies furnished to him and he is examined U/sec.251 of Cr.P.C for the offence under Sec.457, 380 or 411 of IPC for which he understood of the circumstances of the offences and admitted to have committed the offence.

Further he is admitted that and represented on that he would not repeat such acts again considering the admission of juvenile he is counseled and admonished as per Sec.15(a) of JJ

Act and acquitted by adopting child friendly approach for rehabilitation of juvenile in his interest.

The case property shall be given to the defacto complainant after expiry of appeal time.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of March, 2020

Sd/-N.Sarada

Prl.Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board cum II-Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole // APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // NIL

Sd/-N.Sarada

Prl.JJB-Cum-II-AJMFC Ongole.

2