https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302678 The court held that the proceedings initiated under the Seeds Act, 1966 were not maintainable as the company, a necessary party, was not made an accused. Additionally, the delay in initiating prosecution post the expiry of the seed's shelf life deprived the petitioner of the right to have the sample re-tested, causing prejudice. Citing relevant case law, the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice. The Criminal Petition was allowed, and the impugned proceedings were quashed. en-us Tue, 08 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jun 2022 20:39:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302678 The court held that the proceedings initiated under the Seeds Act, 1966 were not maintainable as the company, a necessary party, was not made an accused. Additionally, the delay in initiating prosecution post the expiry of the seed's shelf life deprived the petitioner of the right to have the sample re-tested, causing prejudice. Citing relevant case law, the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice. The Criminal Petition was allowed, and the impugned proceedings were quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 08 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302678