- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:386 CRL.P No. 102248 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. 102248 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MR. ANIL D. BHOSALE RESPONSIBLE PERSONS AND CHEMIST POLLEN AGRO MINERALS PVT LTD., PUNE-412 308. …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-580 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVAR, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1118/2021 (P C NO.197/2021) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANAHATTI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 29 OF THE INSECTICIDE ACT, 1968 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED I.E., ACCUSED NO.2. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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:386 CRL.P No. 102248 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent – State. 2. The petitioner, accused No.2, challenges the cognizance taken for the offence punishable under Section 29 of the Pesticides Act, 1968. 3. The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that, during an inspection of the shop belonging to accused No.1, a sample of pesticide was drawn and sent for analysis to the Pesticide Analysis Laboratory. The laboratory reported that the sample did not meet the prescribed specifications. Accused No.1 approached this Court in Crl.P. No. 104177/2022, and this Court, by an order dated 16.12.2022, quashed the proceedings against accused No.1, observing as follows: 12. 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 the institution of any prosecution 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. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:386 CRL.P No. 102248 of 2024 13. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the complaint indicates that the employee of the company is arraigned as accused No.2 solely because he is an employee of the company engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing insecticides. It is further submitted that accused No.1, a retailer, is not guilty of any offence as alleged in the complaint. The complaint suggests that the company is guilty of the alleged offences, and since accused No.2 is an employee, he has been arraigned as such. In this context, it is evident that the 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 herein and accused No.2, an employee of the company, are not maintainable. Therefore, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed on this ground as well. 14. A perusal of the complaint further shows that, despite allegations of offences committed by the company, Pollen Agro Minerals Private Limited, Pune, there is no averment in the complaint that accused No.2 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 as well.”** 4. Therefore, this petition also requires to be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the aforementioned decision. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:386 CRL.P No. 102248 of 2024 ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.1118/2021 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti, insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused No.2 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26