- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4008 CRL.P No. 101169 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101169 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. NEELESH S/O. MEMARAJ THAKKAR MANAGING DIRECTOR OF MAHARASHTRA BIOFERTILIZERS INDIA PVT LTD., R/AT. PLOT NO.66, APMC YARD, AMARGOL HUBBALLI-580025. 2. SHRI. KUSHAL S/O. NEELESH THAKKAR MAHARSHTRA BIOFERTILIZERS INDIA PVT. LTD., R/AT. PLOT NO.66, APMC YARD, AMARGOL, HUBBALLI-580025. 3. SHRI. IRANNA S.H MAHARSHTRA BIOFERTILIZERS INDIA PVT LTD., R/AT. PLOT NO.66, APMC YARD, AMARGOL HUBBALLI-580025. 4. MAHARASHTRA BIOFERTILIZERS INDIA PVT LTD., R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHRI. NEELESH S/O. HEMARAJ THAKKAR, R/AT. PLOT NO.66, APMC YARD, AMARGOL HUBBALLI-580025. 5. SHRI. NEELESH S/O. HEMARAJ THAKKAR MANAGING DIRECTOR OF MAHARASHTRA, BIOFERTILIZERS INDIA PVT LTD., R/AT. NEAR UDYOG BHAVAN, SHIVAJI NAGAR LATUR, MAHARASHTRA-413512. 6. SHRI. KUSHAL S/O. NEELESH THAKKAR MAHARASHTRA BIOFERTILIZERS INDIA PVT LTD., R/AT. NEAR UDYOG BHAVAN, SHIVAJI NAGAR, LATUR, MAHARASHTRA-413512. 7. MAHARASHTRA BIOFERTILIZERS INDIA PVT LTD MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.03.03 12:58:47 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4008 CRL.P No. 101169 of 2025 R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, R/AT NEAR UDYOG BHAVAN, SHIVAJI NAGAR LATUR, MAHARASHTRA-413512. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HIRANKUMAR PATEL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE OFFICER/INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METROLOGY, ILM HUBLI 2, APMC YARD, HUBBALLI-580025, NOW REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, 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 COGNIZANCE DATED 23.02.2023 AND FURTHER PROCEEDING IN C.C.NO. 845/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HUBBALLI AGAINST ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 7/ PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 15 OF LEGAL METROLOGY ACT 2009. 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. Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent/State. 2. The petitioners, who are facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, are before this Court seeking relief. 3. The respondent filed a private complaint alleging that certain prepackaged packets bottle parakite non-selective contact - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4008 CRL.P No. 101169 of 2025 herbicide (MBF), on which net content 1 ltr marked did not have the prescribed declarations as provided under Legal Metrology Rules- 2011. 4. The issue involved in this petition as to whether the petitioners can be prosecuted without passing an order under Section 36(1) of the Act, was examined by this Court in Crl.P.No.102378/2022. This Court vide order dated 31.10.2022 quashed the proceedings therein by observing as under: The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.100585/2020, at paragraph 10, has held as follows: “10. In terms of sub clause (1) of section 50, remedy of appeal is also available to an offender from any decision taken on the reply for the offences punishable under Section 27 to 39 of the Act. As stated hereinabove, the alleged offence is under Section 31 and 36 of the Act and the aforesaid remedies are available to the petitioners. The respondent without passing an order straight away registers a complaint setting the criminal law into motion. By the act of the respondent in registering the criminal case without passing an order under the provision of law, aforequoted i.e., section 48 and 50 are rendered nugatory. The right of the petitioners are taken away by such act of the respondent. This Court in the case of Ms. Shalini K. vs. The Inspector of Legal Metrology and another, in W.P.No.51116/2017 (GM-RES) and connected cases, while considering an identical provision has held as follows: Compounding of offences is a remedy that is available once offences punishable under Sections 27 to 39 of the Act are alleged against any accused. A remedy of appeal is also available to an accused for any order passed under Sections 15 to 20, 22, 25, 27 to 39 and 41 of the Act or any Rule made thereunder. Therefore, the dual remedy that is available once an offence is alleged is that, one can compound the offence and the other, to file an appeal against an order that would be passed. The petitioners in these cases were in fact summoned to compound the offences - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4008 CRL.P No. 101169 of 2025 though no order was passed either accepting the reply or rejecting it. Therefore, in the light of the remedy of appeal being available in terms of Section 50 of the Act, once offences are alleged against the petitioner under Sections 28, 29 and 31 of the Act, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to have passed an order, for the petitioners to avail the remedy of filing an appeal under Section 50 of the Act, as the offences alleged are of offences against which an appeal under Section 50 of the Act would encompass. By not passing an order on the reply given to the notice/show cause notice by the petitioners, it has rendered the remedy of appeal under Section 50 of the Act as illusory or superfluous. Silence on the part of the respondents cannot be construed to be an order that can be passed, which would become applicable under Section 50 of the Act. The order must be in writing for the petitioners to avail of the remedy of appeal under Section 50 of the Act. It is a liberty granted to the petitioners and the like under the Act; availing of it or not, is the choice of the petitioners but passing an order either accepting the reply or rejecting it, is an obligation on the part of the State performing its functions under the Act. It is only after an order being passed by the Appellate Authority either rejecting or allowing the appeal, registration of a criminal case can take place. Admittedly, no order considering the reply of the petitioners is passed in these cases and as such, the petitions deserve to succeed in part and the matter has to be remitted to the hands of the respondents to act in accordance with law." 5. Hence, this petition also requires to be disposed off in terms of order passed in Crl.P.No.102378/2022. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.845/2023 on the file of learned III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, insofar as the petitioners are quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39