Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8394 (KAR)

SRI GOVINDA RAJU S/O G ISHWARAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/103801/2024 · 2025-02-03

Hemant Chandangoudar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2070 CRL.P No. 103801 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103801 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. GOVINDA RAJU S/O G. ISHWARAPPA, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, PROPERITER, SHRI GURU RAGHAVENDRA AGRU AGENCIES, R/O: WARD NO.21, OLD WARD NO.18 SY NO.271/417, NEAR PLD BANK, SADASHIV NAGAR, SIRUGUPPA, TALLUK: SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI-583 219. 2. SRI. KOTRESH A.M. S/O KOTRAGOUDA, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR MANAGER, KAVERI SEEDS CMPAN, PRAVARDHA SEEDS LIMITED, HOUSE NO.12, 11TH WARD, SHREE KANTI BASAVESHWAR TEMPLE, NANDIHALLI, BALLARI-583 219. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MUSHTAK AHAMED M. AND SRI. PRAKASH R. BADIGER, ADVOCATES) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT: DHARWAD, AND SRI S.B. PATIL, ASSISTANT AGRICULTURAL DIRECTOR AND SEEDS INSPECTOR, AGE: 48 YEARS, RSK CHORANURU, SIRUGUPPA BALLARI, THEN BALLARI DISTRICT, NOW VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583 212. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA) B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.06 11:21:06 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2070 CRL.P No. 103801 of 2024 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2024 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE IIND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE BALLARI IN CR.RE.PET.NO.7/2024 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2022 OF TAKING THE COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 19(A) OF THE SEEDS ACT, 1966 IN CC NO.3812/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SIRUGUPPA, AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. 2. The petitioner challenges the cognizance taken for the offence punishable under Section 19(a) of the Seeds Act, 1966. 3. The second respondent has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that, during an inspection of the petitioner-accused No.1’s shop, a sample of seeds manufactured by Pravardhan Seeds Private Limited was drawn and sent to a seed analyst for testing. The analyst submitted a report stating that the seeds manufactured by the company, of which petitioner No.1 is the retailer and petitioner No.2 is the junior manager, were sub-standard and did not conform to the specifications. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2070 CRL.P No. 103801 of 2024 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 5. Section 21 of the Seeds Act, 1966 addresses offences committed by companies. It states that if a company commits an offence, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business, as well as the company itself, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence. 6. In the present case, petitioner-accused No.1 is the retailer of the subject seeds, and petitioner-accused No.2 is the junior manager of the company that manufactured the seeds. However, petitioner No.2 was not involved in the manufacturing process nor in the day-to-day affairs of the company. Since the company itself has not been arrayed as an accused, the petitioners cannot be held vicariously liable as per Section 21 of the Seeds Act, 1966. 7. Therefore, the complaint filed by the second respondent, without including the company as an accused, is not maintainable. Consequently, the cognizance taken by the learned magistrate is vitiated. The continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.Accordingly, I pass the following order: ORDER i) Criminal Petition is allowed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2070 CRL.P No. 103801 of 2024 ii) The impugned proceedings in 3812/2022, on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, insofar it relates to the petitioners herein stands quashed. Memo of appearance to be filed within a week. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14