Limitation and retesting rights under the Seeds Act require prompt prosecution to preserve the accused's statutory defence.

Complaints under the Seeds Act were held to be time-barred where they were filed long after the analysts' reports and beyond the applicable limitation period for a first-offence, fine-only contravention. The Court also held that filing the complaint after the seed sample had lost its shelf-life or the certification period had expired deprived the accused of the statutory right to seek retesting by the Central Seed Laboratory, which is a mandatory safeguard under the Act. That prejudice to the defence rendered the prosecutions unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecutions under the Seeds Act were barred by limitation because the complaints were filed after the relevant period had expired. (ii) Whether delay in launching the complaints, after the expiry of the seeds' shelf-life and certification period, deprived the accused of the statutory right to have the sample retested by the Central Seed Laboratory and rendered the prosecutions unsustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecutions under the Seeds Act were barred by limitation because the complaints were filed after the relevant period had expired.

Analysis: The offences alleged were first-offence contraventions punishable only with fine, and the limitation under the criminal procedure law therefore had to be applied on that footing. The complaints were instituted long after the analysts' reports were received and beyond the period within which prosecution ought to have been launched on the facts noticed by the Court.

Conclusion: The prosecutions were barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether delay in launching the complaints, after the expiry of the seeds' shelf-life and certification period, deprived the accused of the statutory right to have the sample retested by the Central Seed Laboratory and rendered the prosecutions unsustainable.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Seeds Act confers a right on the accused to seek retesting by the Central Seed Laboratory, and the report of that laboratory supersedes the local analyst's report. That safeguard becomes illusory if the complaint is filed only after the sample has lost its shelf-life or after the certification period has expired. The Court treated this deprivation as prejudice to the defence and as non-compliance with mandatory statutory safeguards.

Conclusion: The delay defeated the accused's statutory right of retesting and made the prosecutions unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The prosecutions were quashed because they were both time-barred and contrary to the mandatory procedural safeguards designed to protect the accused's defence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers a right of retesting that depends on the subsistence of the sample or certification period, prosecution must be initiated with promptitude so that the accused is not prejudiced in exercising that right; failure to do so can render the prosecution illegal and liable to be quashed.

---