- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1918 WP No. 107505 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 107505 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: ROHINI MICRO NUTRIENT INDUSTRIES MAHALINGPUR TALUKA MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, MALLAPPA KATTI S/O. YAMANAPPA KATTI, AS PER COMPLIANT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH AGRICULTURAL OFFICER CUM FERTILIZER INSPECTOR, RAITHA SAMPARKA KENDRA, ANNIGERI, DIST. DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER DATED 01.07.2014 AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN CC NO.186/2014, ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, NAVALGUND, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(1)A(ii) OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT AND CLAUSE 30(2) OF THE FERTILIZER CONTROL ORDER, VIDE ANNXURE A AND B, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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: 2025.02.13 11:17:58 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1918 WP No. 107505 of 2023 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act and engaged in the business of manufacturing fertilizers, challenges the cognizance taken for the offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and Clause 30(2) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. 2. The respondent has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), alleging that, during an inspection, it was discovered that fertilizer was stacked in the premises of the Farmers Development Centre. A sample of the fertilizer was collected and sent to a chemical analyst for examination. The chemical analyst submitted a report stating that the fertilizer did not conform to the prescribed specifications. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 4. Rule 24 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, mandates that every manufacturing organization, importer, and pool-handling agency must appoint, in consultation with the Central Government, an officer responsible for ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Order. 5. In the present case, the petitioner-company has duly appointed a Compliance Officer as required under Rule 24 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. However, the Compliance Officer has not been arraigned as an accused in the complaint. The - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1918 WP No. 107505 of 2023 Compliance Officer, appointed in terms of Rule 24, is the person responsible for maintaining the quality of the fertilizers manufactured by the company. Since the officer directly responsible for compliance has not been made an accused, the petitioner-company cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 6. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for contravention of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.186/2014 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Navalgund, insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused stands quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 3 Sl No.: 3