2017 INSC 0522
                       SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd

                       Vs.

                       The State of Maharashtra

                       Crl.A.No.1092 of 2017

                       (Ranjan Gogai and Navin Sinha,JJ.,)

                       10.07.2017

                       ORDER

SLP(Crl.)No.4017/2017

1. Leave granted.

2. The accused-appellant(s) who have failed in convincing the High Court to quash the
criminal proceedings have assailed the Order dated 06.04.2017 of the High Court in this
appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

4. The point agitated is short and precise. The sample of seeds was taken on 01.09.2002 and
the report of the Seed Analyst is dated 26.09.2002. The shelf life of the sample was till
07.11.2002 which is evident from the details of the samples taken, mentioned in Form-VIII.
A complaint was filed on 31.01.2003. Under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, 1966 after
institution of above prosecution, the accused or the complainant, as may be, is vested with a
right to make an application to the Court for sending a part of the sample to the Central Seed
Laboratory for reanalysis. Such pari materia provisions in other statutes have been held by
this Court to be mandatory, vesting a valuable right either in the accused or the complainant
as may be.

5. In the present case, by the time the complaint came to be filed on 31.01.2003, the sample
has lost its shelf life. If that be so, the accused-appellant must be understood to have been
deprived of his valuable right of reanalysis.

6. Such deprivation will go to the root of the matter and render the prosecution futile and
redundant. If that is so, we are inclined to hold that there is no reason why the proceedings
should not be quashed. We order accordingly.

7. The order of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.  SpotLaw

                                                         1
2  SpotLaw