Karnataka High Court
R.V.Kusumbekar Officer, vs The Government Of Karnataka on 12 September, 2014
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200785/2014
BETWEEN:
R.V.Kusumbekar
Officer, Age: 58 years,
Zuari Industries Ltd.
Jai Kishan Bhavan
Zuari Nagar, Goa - 403 726 ...PETITIONER
(By Sri N.B.Diwanji, Advocate)
AND:
The Government of Karnataka
Represented by the Inspector of
Fertilizer cum Asst. Director of
Agriculture, Gulbarga
Tq. & Dist. Gulbarga ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri S.S. Aspalli, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings along with
the complaint so far as petitioner is concerned in
C.C.No.1542/2013 pending on the file of I-Addl. JMFC,
Gulbarga and etc.
This Petition coming on for admission this day, the
court made the following:
2
ORDER
The learned Government Advocate takes notice.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused no.1 in C.C.No.1542/2013 pending trial for violation of Clause 19 (1)
(a) and 28 (1) (a) and 28 (4) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and also for an offence punishable under Section 3 (2)
(a) and (d) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
3. The impugned order of issuance of process reads thus:
"Heard argument, perused complaint. Cognizance taken. Register case in register no.3. Issue SS to accused. Call on 23.03.2013."
4. From the impugned order, it is obvious that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind and the order cannot be termed as an order passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is an employee of Zuari Industries Limited, Jai Kishan Bhavan, Zuari Nagar, Goa.
5. In the complaint, it is not shown as to how the first accused is responsible for adulteration of fertilizers and contravention of aforestated provisions. The learned 3 magistrate without considering all these aspects has issued process to the accused.
6. The learned Government Advocate submits that liberty be reserved to complainant to file a fresh complaint.
7. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the order passed by this court in Crl.P 979/2004 dated 04.03.2008. In the aforestated order, this court has held:
"In the case on hand, it is not stated, petitioner herein was incharge and was responsible to M/s Zauri Industries Limited. Above all, Company is not arrayed as an accused. The Supreme Court in the cause of State of Madras Vs. C.V.Parekh and Another reported in AIR 1970(3) SCC 491 has held:
"The conviction of respondents is untenable in law as the person contravening the order must be the company itself as laid in Section 10 of the Act. The company was not charged at all and the liability of those in charge of the company cannot arise unless the company was charge-sheeted. The actual contravening was by Kamdar and Vallabhadas Thacker and that would not fasten the responsibility on the respondents. The acquittal by the High Court is right".
In view of the above, there is legal bar to continue the proceedings against the petitioner/accused no.1. 4
7. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is accepted. The impugned proceedings as they relate to petitioner (accused no.1) in C.C.No.1542/2013 pending on the file of I Addl. JMFC., at Gulbarga are quashed. IA-1/2014 does not survive for consideration.
It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of complainant initiating fresh complaint in accordance with law subject to law of limitation.
The learned Government Advocate is directed to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-