Full Judgment
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201691 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. PRASHANT S/O SANGAPPA PATTANASHETTI AGE 40 YEARS OCCUPATION BUSINESS SHRI REVANASIDDESHWAR KRUSHI KENDRA DEVARHIPPARAGI TALUK SINDAGI DISTRICT
Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN VIJAYAPURA - 586 101 RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH …PETITIONER COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. S S MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER -2- FERTILIZER INSPECTOR OF FERTILIZER OFFICE OF THE RAITHA SAMPARKA KENDRA DEVARHIPPARAGI TALUK SINDAGI DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADVOCATE GENERAL’S OFFICE HIGH COURT BUILDING KALABURAGI - 585 101 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.ANITHA REDDY, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 DATED 09.08.2021 IN CC NO. 4486/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONOURABLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SINDAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH -3-
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)
1. The petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court seeking
to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4486/2021 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindagi, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Brief facts of the case:
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, the complainant
was working as Agricultural Officer in the office of Raitha Samparka Kendra, Devara-Hipparagi. It is alleged that, the accused No.1 was a dealer in fertilizers and having a dealership license for selling the fertilizers. Accused No.2 is the responsible person of the company M/s. Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited. It is alleged that the accused No.1 was selling substandard quality of fertilizers to the farmers. On being informed, the complainant took a sample and sent it for examination and it is found that the said fertilizer was substandard. As such, the complaint came to be lodged against the accused Nos.1 -4- and 2 for having violated Clause 19 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, thereby, they have committed an offence under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
3. Heard Sri.S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Anitha Reddy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the Company should have been made as accused along with other accused. Failing to array the Company as accused is said to be illegal and as such, initiation of such prosecution against the petitioner does not survive for consideration and liable to be quashed. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader
for the respondent - State submits that the complainant has not made Company as accused in this case, however, there is a scope under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to array the Company as accused. Not arraying the Company as -5- accused in this case, is not illegal, but, it is an irregularity that can be cured at the stage of taking cognizance. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State prays to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the documents, it is necessary to refer Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which reads thus;-
“10. Offences by companies.―(1) If the person contravening an order made under section 3 is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub- section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention. -6-
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in
subsection (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation.― For the purposes of this section,―
(a) “company” means any body corporate, and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
(b) “director” in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm.
[10A. Offences to be cognizable.― Notwithstanding anything contained in [the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)] every offence punishable under this Act shall be “cognizable. [10B. Power of court to publish name, place of business, etc., of companies convicted under the Act.―(1) Where any company is convicted under this Act, it shall be competent for the court convicting the company to cause the name and place of business of the company, nature of the -7- contravention, the fact that the company has been so convicted and such other particulars as the court may consider to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, to be published at the expense of the company in such newspapers or in such other manner as the court may direct.
(2) No publication under sub-section (1) shall be
made until the period for preferring an appeal against the orders of the court has expired without any appeal having been preferred, or such an appeal, having been preferred, has been disposed of.
(3) The expenses of any publication under
subsection (1) shall be recoverable from the company as if it were a fine imposed by the court. Explanation.― For the purposes of this section, “company” has the meaning assigned to it in clause
(a) of the Explanation of section 10.]
10C. Presumption of culpable mental state.―(1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. -8-
Explanation.― In this section, “culpable mental state” includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to
be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.]”
7. On careful reading of the above said provision, it makes
clear that, if any offence is committed by the Company, the Company should be made as party to the proceedings. Unless, the Company is made as a party to the proceedings, the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the other accused persons, would not be proper.
8. In the present case, the petitioner stated to be the dealer
of the fertilizer. Accused No.2 is the responsible officer of the Company. On careful perusal of the entire averments of the complaint, the complainant has not made the Company as one of the accused, which is mandatory as required under Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act. Having failed to make the Company as one of the -9- accused, certainly, would vitiate the entire proceedings. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.
9. In the light of the above observations, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings against the petitioner / accused No.1 in C.C.No.4486/2021 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindagi, is hereby stands quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2