- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:385 CRL.P No. 102262 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102262 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PRABHU S/O. BHUJABALI KENGALI AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. OWNER OF M. CHANNADRAPRABHU FERTILIZERS TERDAL, R/O. NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE, TERDAL-587315, TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH AGRICULTURE OFFICER, SEED FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE SUPERVISORS, TERDAL, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1117/2021 (P. C. NO.196/2021) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANAHATTI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 29 OF THE INSECTICIDE ACT, 1967 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED I.E., ACCUSED NO.1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.21 07:28:43 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:385 CRL.P No. 102262 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner – accused No.1 challenges the cognizance taken of the offence punishable under Section 29 of the Pesticides Act, 1968. 2. The respondent filed a private complaint stating that, during the inspection of the shop belonging to accused No.1, a sample of the subject fertilizer was drawn and sent to the Pesticide Analysis Laboratory. The said laboratory submitted a report stating that the fertilizer did not meet the prescribed specifications. Accused No.2, an employee of the manufacturer, had approached this Court in Crl.P. No. 104096/2022, wherein this Court, by an order dated 16.12.2022, quashed the proceedings against accused No.2. The relevant observations at paragraphs 14 to 17 are as follows: **“14. A perusal of the material on record, including the complaint filed by the complainant, indicates that prior written consent from the State Government or an authorized person was not obtained by the complainant before presenting the complaint to the trial Court. Section 31 of the Act mandates that obtaining such written consent is a pre- condition for instituting any prosecution for an offence under the Act. In view of the undisputed fact that no such written consent was obtained prior to the presentation of the complaint, the impugned order taking cognizance of the said offences against the petitioner and other accused deserves to be quashed. 15. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the complaint indicates that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 on the ground that he is the Managing Director of Agri Search (India) Pvt. Ltd., which is engaged in the business of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:385 CRL.P No. 102262 of 2024 manufacturing and marketing insecticides. The complaint alleges that the company is guilty of the offences, and since the petitioner is the Managing Director, he has been arraigned as accused No.2. In this context, it is evident that the said company, duly incorporated under the Companies Act, is both a proper and necessary party to the criminal proceedings as required under Section 33 of the Act. In the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, proceedings against the petitioner, who was the CEO, are not maintainable, and the impugned order and criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed on this ground as well. 16. A perusal of the complaint further shows that, despite allegations of offences committed by the company, Agri Search (India) Pvt. Ltd., there is no averment in the complaint that the petitioner was in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company as contemplated under Section 33 of the Act. In the absence of necessary averments in the complaint regarding the petitioner’s responsibility for the conduct of the business of the company, the impugned order and the proceedings against the petitioner deserve to be quashed on this ground also. 17. A perusal of the complaint also shows that the petitioner’s address is mentioned as Belagavi, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the trial Court. Consequently, in the absence of compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., the impugned order directing the issuance of summons to the petitioner deserves to be quashed on this ground as well.”** 3. Therefore, this petition also requires to be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid decision. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:385 CRL.P No. 102262 of 2024 ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.1117/2021 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti, insofar as it relates to the accused No.1 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27