- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1830 CRL.P No. 200490 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200490 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHARANABASAPPA S/O GURULINGAPPA EMANTI, AGE:58 YEARS, OCC: REGIONAL MANAGER, ZUARI AGRO CHEMICAL LTD., OFFICE OF THE MCF BEHIND KEB COMPOUND, SHANTI NAGAR, RAICHUR DIST. 2. MAHESH NAYAK S/O VIJAYA S. NAYAK, AGE:48 YEARS, OCC: PRODUCTION MANAGER AND LEGAL CELL, ZUARI AGRO CHEMICALS LTD., JAI KISAN BHAVAN, ZUARI NAGAR, GOA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI MANJUNATH SHIVANNA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, BASAVAKALYAN, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585107. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO EXERCISE INHERENT POWERS U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS, EXAMINE THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.2239/2023 (PRIVATE COMPLAINT NO.27/2022) FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 19 OF THE FERTILIZER CONTROL ORDER 1985 AND U/SEC. 3 AND 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955, PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BASVAKALYAN, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1830 CRL.P No. 200490 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings in C.C. No.2239/2023 by the respondent and also the order of taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 19 of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavakalyan. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Fertilizer Inspector / complainant visited the shop of accused No.1 on 23.01.2025, namely, M/s.Kamshetty Fertilizer Shop situated in the Main Road, Basavakalyan and draw the fertilizer samples relating to 10:26:26. After taking the samples, it was sent for chemical analysis. The laboratory report would indicate that the sample was found to be sub-standard as per the report of the Government - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1830 CRL.P No. 200490 of 2025 analysis. The said Fertilizer after having considered as sub-standard, a case came to be registered against the accused for having violated the above said provisions. The Trial Court took cognizance and proceeded further in accordance with law. 3. Heard Sri.Manjunath Shivanna, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act would indicate that, to prosecute the accused for having committed the above said offences, the company must be made as one of the accused, which is sine-qua- non under the said Act. However, the said company has not been made as an independent accused, which is illegal. Therefore, the entire proceedings has to be quashed. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State submitted that the order of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1830 CRL.P No. 200490 of 2025 taking cognizance is proper and appropriate for the reason that, the order of taking cognizance has to be sustained even in the absence of the company as one of the accused. 6. It is further submitted that the said procedural aspect may be rectified even at the later stage. Therefore, at this stage, it is not proper to quash the proceedings. Making such submissions, the learned HCGP prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it is necessary to refer the provision under Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, which reads as under: “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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1830 CRL.P No. 200490 of 2025 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. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (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.” - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1830 CRL.P No. 200490 of 2025 8. On careful reading of the above said provision, it makes it clear that to sustain the conviction under the said provisions, the company must be made as one of the accused. 9. In this context, it is also necessary to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF MADRAS v. C.V.PAREKH AND ANOTHER1. Paragraph No.3, which reads as under: “3. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, sought conviction of the two respondents on the basis of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act under which, if the person contravening an order made under Section 3 (which covers an order under the Iron and Steel Control Order, 1956) 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. It was urged that the two respondents were in charge of, and were responsible to, the company 1 1970 (3) SCC 491 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1830 CRL.P No. 200490 of 2025 for the conduct of the business of the company and, consequently, they must be held responsible for the sale and for thus contravening the provisions of Clause 5 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order. This argument cannot be accepted, because it ignores the first condition for the applicability of Section 10 to the effect that the person contravening the order must be a company Itself. In the present case, there is no finding either by the Magistrate or by the High Court that the sale in contravention of Clause 5 of the Iron & Steel (Control) Order was made by the Company. In fact, the Company was not charged with the offence at all. The liability of the persons in charge of the Company only arises when the contravention is by the Company itself. Since, in this case, there is no evidence and no finding that the Company contravened Clause 5 of the Iron & Steel (Control) Order, the two respondents could not be held responsible. The actual contravention was by Kamdar and Villabhadas Thacker and any contravention by them would not fasten responsibility on the respondents. The acquittal of the respondents is, therefore, fully justified. The appeal fails and is dismissed.” - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1830 CRL.P No. 200490 of 2025 10. Having considered the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the present case, the complainant has committed an error in not making the company as one of the accused. Therefore, the order of taking cognizance, under such circumstances, has to be vitiated as it has violated the legal requirements. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, the petition is deserved to be allowed. 11. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The entire proceedings in C.C No.2239/2023 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC at Basavakalyan as against the petitioners, is quashed. SD/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE TMP/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT:PK