- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3340 CRL.P No. 100822 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100822 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SOORYA AGRO AGENCIES R/BY ITS PARTNER, SHRI. SANJEEV M. THAKKER, AT 1ST FLOOR, CORPORATION BUILDING, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI-580029. 2. SHRI. SANJEEV M. THAKKER AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. PARTNER/OWNER, AT 1ST FLOOR, CORPORATION BUILDING, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI-580029. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHRI. VISHWAVIRAT VITHALRAO, PESTICIDE INSPECTOR AND AGRI OFFICER, FARMERS CONTACT CENTER, MUDHOL, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SE. 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE COGNIZANCE DATED 22.06.2021 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 AND 2 AS TAKEN BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HUBBALLI IN CC NO. 6448/2021 FOR OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 13(1), 18(1), 17 AND RULE 9 AND 10 OF THE INSECTICIDES ACT, 1968. B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.21 17:16:21 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3340 CRL.P No. 100822 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners who are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1), 18(1), 17 and Rules 9 and 10 of Insecticides Act, 1968 are before this Court seeking relief. 2. The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), stating that, upon receiving credible information, a raid was conducted on the premises of accused No.1. During the raid, 346 kg of alleged substandard and unregistered pesticides, which had been stacked, was seized. A sample of the insecticide was then sent to the insecticide analyst for analysis under Section 24 of the Insecticides Act. 3. The insecticide analyst submitted a report dated 02.12.2020, stating that the pesticide seized from the premises of accused No.1 and manufactured by Maharashtra Bio Fertilizers India Private Limited was of substandard quality. 4. The complainant issued a show-cause notice to the petitioners as well as the manufacturer for violating the Insecticides Act, 1968. In response, the manufacturer, through a communication dated 04.03.2021, requested the complainant to send the pesticide for re-analysis under Sub-Section 24(3) of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3340 CRL.P No. 100822 of 2025 Insecticides Act. After perusing the complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 6. In terms of Section 24 of the Act, the complainant sent the pesticide to the insecticide analyst for analysis. The insecticide analyst submitted a report dated 02.12.2020, stating that the pesticide was of substandard quality. In response, the manufacturer, through a reply dated 03.04.2021, requested the complainant to send the pesticide for re-analysis under Sub- Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act. 7. Under Sub-Section 4 of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, the respondent was obligated to send the collected samples for re-analysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory. However, without fulfilling this requirement, the respondent filed a private complaint, thereby depriving the petitioners of the opportunity to have the pesticide re-analyzed. 8. Admittedly, the pesticide in question was manufactured by a company incorporated under the Companies Act. 9. Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, addresses offences committed by companies and states that when an offence under the Act is committed by a company, every person who, at the time of the offence, was in charge of or responsible for the company’s business shall be deemed guilty of the offence. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3340 CRL.P No. 100822 of 2025 10. In the present case, the company itself has not been arraigned as an accused. Only accused No.1, who is the retailer and dealer, and accused No.2, who is a partner in accused No.1’s firm, have been arraigned. Since the company has not been made an accused, the petitioners cannot be held vicariously liable along with the company under Section 33 of the Act. Consequently, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 11. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.6448/2021 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, At Hubballi, insofar as it relates to the petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 2 stands quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16