- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20216 WP No. 8396 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 8396 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SYED SAMI ULLA, S/O SYED AMEER SAB, AGED 77 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. MUSTAF TRADERS, LOCATED NEAR BUS STAND HULIYARU, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, TUMAKURU – 572 218. 2. GIA AGRO/GIA CROP CARE (WRONGLY MENTIONED IN PCR AND ORDER SHEET AS ZIA CROP) REPRESENTED BY SHASHIDHAR S PATIL, LOCATED AT PLOT NO. 34, ANUPAMA COLLEGE ROAD, SHIRDI SAI BABA LAYOUT, ANDARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 091. 3. KARNATAKA AGRO CORPORATION (WRONGLY MENTIONED IN PCR AND ORDER SHEET AS GROMMORE INDUSTRIES) REPRESENTED BY PARAMESH, LOCATED AT 2ND FLOOR, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20216 WP No. 8396 of 2026 NO.140/2, MANJUNATHA MANSION, 9TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU – 560 018. 4. HYDRO MICRO AGRI TECH (WRONGLY MENTIONED IN PCR AND ORDER SHEET AS N.B GREEN PLUS COMPANY) REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER BABU TADASAD, LOCATED AT NO. 31/3 MAVALLIPURA VILLAGE, BENGALURU – 560 089. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURE OFFICER IN CHARGE, SOMASHEKARAIAH C.N. OFFICE AT FARMERS CONTACT CENTER, HULIYARU OFFICE, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, CHIKKAMAYAKANAHALLI – 572 214. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED/PETITIONERS IN CC NO.52/2021 ARISING OUT OF PCR 26/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20216 WP No. 8396 of 2026 HON'BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CN HALLI, TUMAKURU, FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 29(1) OF THE INSECTICIDES ACT, 1968 AT ANNEXURE-A AND B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayers: "a. Quash the entire proceeding against the Accused/Petitioners in CC No.52/2021 arising out of PCR 26/2021 pending on the file of Hon'ble Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC,CN Halli, Tumkur, for violation of Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 at Annexure-A & B. b. And grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice." 2. Heard Sri.Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent and have perused the materials on record. 3. Apart from plethora of submissions that are made, what merits consideration in the case at hand is already - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20216 WP No. 8396 of 2026 determined by the Coordinate Bench in Crl.R.P.No.139/2024 disposed on 07.05.2024. The Coordinate Bench has held as follows: "ORDER 1. The Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the order of taking cognizance and issuance of summons dated 07.11.2023 in C.C No.1779/2023 arising out of PCR No.17/2023 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada, Tumkur, for the offences punishable under Sections 6(1), 9(1), 10, 10(D), 12 and 15 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short ‘Act’) Brief facts of the case: 2. The first petitioner is the proprietor of Sri Gayathri Agencies which is a certified retailer of insecticides and fertilizers. The second petitioner is the Deputy Manager (Q.C. & Liaison) of M/s Aries Agro Limited. The third petitioner is the Chief Operations Officer of M/s Aries Agro Limited. The respondent / complainant said to have carried out an inspection on 10.10.2023 of Sri Gayathri Agencies and said to have found that Potasium Salt of Phosponicacid – (Kphonic) was being sold without licence in contravention of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and Insecticides Rules, 1971. Mahazar was conducted on the same day and samples were collected. On 11.10.2023, the complainant issued notices to the employer i.e., M/s.Aries Agro Limited seeking submission of relevant documents within seven days from the date of receipt of notice. In response to the said notice, the employer has clarified that the product Potasium Salt of Phosponicacid – (Kphonic) is not a pesticide and further requested for revocation of the Stop-Sale notice. Thereafter, the complainant initiated a private complaint against the accused Nos.1 to 3 /petitioners for the above- said offences. The Trial Court took cognizance and issued notice to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20216 WP No. 8396 of 2026 3. Heard Sri.Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Rahul Rai.K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Trial Court while taking cognizance ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) which mandates that if the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the Court, the Magistrate is required to conduct an enquiry before issuance of the summons under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. However, the Trial Court took cognizance contrary to the above said provision and also the law. 5. It is further submitted that the order of taking cognizance is contrary to the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of VIJAY DHANUKA vs. NAZIMA MAMTAJ ((2014) 14 SCC 638), JAGIR SINGH vs. RANBIR SINGH ((1979) 1 SCC 560), and CBI vs. STATE OF GUJARAT (1979) 1 SCC 560). 6. It is further submitted that the respondent is not a competent person to lodge a complaint before the learned Magistrate. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has failed to take note of the fact that the order of taking cognizance is in violation of Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 which says a person who is responsible for the conduct of business as well as the company must be made as a party mandatorily. In the absence of making necessary party to the proceedings, cognizance ought not to have been taken by the Trial Court. Therefore, the order of taking cognizance is required to be set aside. Making such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State vehemently opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and further submitted that the complainant made all efforts and gathered the information regarding the sale of insecticides by the petitioners and further submitted that the first petitioner was selling the insecticides and pesticides which he ought not to have sold it. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20216 WP No. 8396 of 2026 8. It is further submitted that selling the pesticides without obtaining a proper licence amounts to misconduct. The first petitioner was selling the items and the second and third petitioners being the officers of the Company were supposed to be vigilant on such sales. Since they have not taken proper care to regulate such illegal sales, they have been arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 in the present case. 9. It is further submitted that the Magistrate while taking cognizance has to satisfy himself as to whether any prima facie case is made out or not. If the Magistrate is satisfied, he can take cognizance and issue summons. In the present case, the order of taking cognizance is based on the documents and also averments of the complaint. Therefore, there is no error committed by the Magistrate in taking the cognizance. Hence, the petition filed challenging the validity of taking cognizance has to be dismissed. Making such submission, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State prays to dismiss the petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the order of taking cognizance and submission regarding not arraigning the Company as one of the accused. It is necessary to refer to Section 33 of the Insecticides Act. “33. Offences by companies.- (1)Whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, or 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 offence 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 under this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (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, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20216 WP No. 8396 of 2026 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 purpose of this section,- (a)"company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals;and (b)"director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.” 11. On reading of the above said provision, it is clear that if offences are committed by a Company or Firm, the person who is in charge of, or responsible to the day today affairs of the Firm is deemed to be guilty of the offences. In other words, if any case is required to be registered against the Director of a Company or Firm, the Company must be made one of the accused. In the present case, the complaint discloses that accused No.1 being a proprietor of Sri Gayathri Agencies under which he was selling insecticides belongs to the Company of accused Nos.2 and 3. Even though complainant made accused Nos.2 and 3 as parties, as per Section 33 of the Act, Company must also be made as one of the accused. However, Company has not been made one of the accused which is mandatory in terms of Section 33 of the Act. In the absence of the Company being made as one of the accused, the complaint cannot be maintainable. However, the Trial Court while taking cognizance has failed to take note of the said aspect, hence, the order of taking cognizance is termed as non- application of mind and deserves to be set aside. 12. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The order of taking cognizance and issuance of summons dated 07.11.2023 in C.C No.1779/2023 arising out of PCR No.17/2023 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada, Tumkur, is hereby set aside. (iii) In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration and the same is also disposed of." - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20216 WP No. 8396 of 2026 4. The facts obtaining in the case at hand are identical. The issue projected is again identical. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to paraphrase the said order to the subject order and obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner. 5. In the light of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.52/2021 arising out of PCR 26/2021 pending before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, CN Halli, Tumkur, stand quashed, qua the petitioners. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 41