- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7614 CRL.P No.201055/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201055/2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI GOPU RATHOD AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS OCC: RAJESH AGRO CENTRE TALUKA PANCHAYAT COMPLEX STATION ROAD, TALUK INDI DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA – 586 101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVANAND V PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR- CUM-AGRICULTURE OFFICER INDI, DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA – 586 209 REP. BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH – 585 107 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.ANITHA M REDDY, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C./528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.11.2014 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC INDI, DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA IN C.C.NO.724/2014 (P.C.R.NO.32/2014) OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUE OF PROCESS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 18(1)(c), 17(1)(a) & (c) READ WITH SECTIONS 3(k)(i) AND 29 of INSECTICIDES ACT, 1968 AND RULE 27(5) OF INSECTICIDE RULES, 1971 AND SECTION 3 READ WITH SECTION 7 OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7614 CRL.P No.201055/2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Since the handwritten copies of the order sheet are legible and as the petitioner is not relying on the same, office objection in that regard is overruled. 2. “Whether the proceedings against petitioner/accused No.1 in CC No.724/2014 (PCR No.32/2014) on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Indi, Vijayapura District amount to abuse of the process of the Court?” is the question involved in this case. 3. One Priyadarshini H.Y, Insecticide Inspector cum Agricultural Officer, Indi filed complaint in P.C.R.No.32/2014 against the petitioner and accused No.2. Accused No.2 is the Managing Director of Cheminova India Ltd. It was alleged that petitioner/accused No.1 being the distributor/retailer and accused No.2 being the Manufacturer of insecticide called Dimethoate 30% EC (Rogor) were found selling that product by misbranding the same, thereby they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 17(1)(a)(c), 18(1)(c) read with Section 3(k)(i) and Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7614 CRL.P No.201055/2025 1968 and Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short). 4. Trial Court took cognizance of the offences, registered the case in C.C.No.724/2014, issued summons to the accused. The records show that presence of accused No.2 who is said to be the resident of Bihar could not be secured by the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court split up the case against accused No.2 and has proceeded with trial only against the petitioner. 5. Petitioner has challenged the said proceedings in this petition on the ground that he was only a retailer and the product in question was manufactured by company called Cheminova India Ltd. Ltd. Whatever was manufactured by the said company was supplied to him and he has distributed the same. But the said company was not arrayed as accused in the complaint. In view of Section 10 of the Act without making company as party in the complaint, the complaint itself is not maintainable. So in such event, ultimately, the petitioner also cannot be held liable and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.724/2014 would be ultimately futile exercise. Hence, he - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7614 CRL.P No.201055/2025 claims that the proceedings before the trial Court is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be set aside. 6. Heard both side. 7. As per the complaint itself, accused No.2 was the Manufacturer of the product which was allegedly misbranded. Accused No.1/petitioner is only a retailer. The allegation of misbranding are against accused No.2 and that accused No.1 has sold the same. Therefore the primary liability is of accused No.2. Admittedly, Cheminova India Ltd. the company who is the manufacturer of the product is not arrayed as the accused in the case and only the Managing Director of the said company was impleaded as accused No.2. 8. The trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 17(1)(a) & (c), 18(1)(c) read with Sections 3(k)(i) and 29 of the Insecticides Act and Rule 27(5) of Insecticides Rules and Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Act. 9. Section 7 of the Act makes punishable the contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the said Act. Section 7(2) of the Act states that any such violation is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7614 CRL.P No.201055/2025 than 3 months but which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine. 10. Section 10 of the Act which deals with offences by Companies reads as follows: “10. Offences by companies.―(1) If the person contravening an order made under section 3 is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.― For the purposes of this section,― (a) “company” means any body corporate, and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7614 CRL.P No.201055/2025 (b) “director” in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm.” 11. Reading of Section 10(2) of the Act shows that the Managing Director, Director, Manager, Secretary etc. of the company are liable only if it is proved that the offence is committed with their consent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited1 has held that in such cases or in the cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act whenever the offences are allegedly committed by the company, it is mandatory to make the company as well as the Director and other officers who are responsible for the acts of the company as accused. It is further held that in the absence of making the company as accused, the proceedings are violative of Section 10 of the Act and unsustainable. 12. At the cost of repetition, it is to be said that as per the complaint, the person who manufactured the misbranded product was the company. The liability of distributing them, if any, by the present petitioner emanates from such production. When the proceedings against the company itself is not brought up and only the Managing Director of the company is made as 1 (2012) 5 SCC 661 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7614 CRL.P No.201055/2025 accused No.2, it is unlikely that the proceedings against accused No.1 succeed. The matter is already pending before the trial Court since more than 10 years. Under the aforesaid circumstances, proceeding further in the matter against the petitioner amounts to nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, said proceedings against petitioner are liable to be quashed. Hence the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.724/2014 (P.C.R.No.32/2014) on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Indi against the petitioner are hereby quashed. Pending IAs, if any stood disposed of. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE KSR List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1