- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:85 CRL.P No. 103656 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103656 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. BASAPPA S/O. ADIVEPPA UNAD, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PRATHAMIKKRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ANAGAWADI, TALUK. BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 101. 2. BASAVARAJ RUDRAPPA GIRENNAVAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: CRIYAGEN AGRI. AND BIOTECH PVT. LTD., 14TH, NH-13, VIJAYAPUR-SOLAPUR HIGHWAY, VIJAYAPUR-586 119. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY FERTILIZER INSPECTOR, CUM AGRICULTURE OFFICER, O/O: RAITH SAMPARK KENDRA, ANAGAWADI, TQ: BILAGI-587 101. PARASHURAM S. GANI AGE: 45 YEARS, ALSO R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD-580 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA) ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.09 12:51:14 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:85 CRL.P No. 103656 of 2024 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.339/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BILAGI BAGALKOT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER CLAUSE 19 OF FERTILIZER (CONTROL) ORDER 1985 AND SECTION 3 AND 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 2/PETITIONER NO.1 TO 2. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging that accused No.1 is the owner and person in charge of the firm for the conduct of its business. The firm is engaged in the business of fertilizers and organic manures and holds a retailer’s license for selling fertilizers and organic manures. Accused No.2 is the Managing Director of a private limited company that manufactures and markets organic manure. 2. During an inspection of the premises of accused No.1, the complainant drew a sample of organic manure from the stock and sent it to the Fertilizer Analyst for examination. The Fertilizer Analyst, upon analysis, submitted a report indicating that the organic manure was of substandard quality. Consequently, the complainant issued a notice to accused No.1, along with a copy of the Fertilizer Analyst’s report. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:85 CRL.P No. 103656 of 2024 3. Accused No.1 requested that the sample be re- analyzed. The Laboratory In-charge, Regional Center of Organic Farming, confirmed in a subsequent report that the organic manure in question was of substandard quality. Based on this, it was alleged that accused No.1 committed an offence under Clause 19 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 4. The manufacturer of the organic manure is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, which has also been named in the complaint. The issue for consideration in this case is whether the prosecution can proceed against the retailer when the company itself has not been arraigned as an accused. 5. Section 2 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, defines relevant terms and links the provisions of the Control Order to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 6. Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, deals with offences committed by companies. It states that if the person contravening an order made under Section 3 is a company, then every person who, at the time of the contravention, was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business, as well as the company itself, shall be deemed guilty of the contravention. 7. In this case, the company, which manufactured the organic manure, has not been arraigned as an accused. Accused - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:85 CRL.P No. 103656 of 2024 No.1 is the retailer, and accused No.2 is the Managing Director of the company. Neither can be held vicariously liable under Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, without the company being made a party to the proceedings. 8. A similar issue was considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No.102568/2022 (DD 14.09.2022), wherein it was held that when the company is not arraigned as an accused, the complaint is not maintainable against the retailer or the Managing Director. Therefore, in such circumstances, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 9. In light of the above, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.339/2021 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi Bagalkot, insofar as it relates to the petitioners – accused No.1 and 2 stands quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE Bkm Ct:bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 140