Karnataka High Court
Satyendra Nagwekar vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2023
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
CRL.P No. 100487 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100487 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SATYENDRA NAGWEKAR,
AGE: 51 YEARS, DIRECTOR,
KARAPUR AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED,
1ST FLOOR, VAIBHAV APARTMENTS,
VIDYANAGAR COLONY, MIRAMAR PANJI,
GOA-403001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANDESH CHOUTA, SR. COUNSEL,
SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, AND
SRI. ARVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPTD., BY ITS
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE CUM
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR (ENFORCEMENT-2),
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
Date: 2023.06.09 KOPPAL-583231.
15:15:03 -0700
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE U/SEC.
297 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1968 DATED
-2-
CRL.P No. 100487 of 2023
08.09.2022 IN C.C. NO. 3945/2022, PENDING ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOPPAL IN SO FOR AS
THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED.AT
ANNEXURE-K AND SET ASIDE THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.
NO.3945/2022, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 297 OF
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1968 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOPPAL, IN SO FAR AS
THE PETITIONER/A-2 IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri. Sandesh Chouta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.
2. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer :-
"Wherefore, for the reasons stated herein above, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:
i. C all for records.-3-
CRL.P No. 100487 of 2023 ii. Set-aside the order of taking cognizance of the offence u/s 29 of Essential Commodities Act, 1968 dated 08.09.2022 in C.C. No.3945/2022, pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal insofar as the petitioner/accused Nop.2 is concerned at ANNEXURE-K. iii. Set-aside the complaint in C.C. No.3945/2022 for the offence punishable u/s 29 of Essential Commodities Act, 1968 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal, insofar as the petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned.
iv. Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. "
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
3.1. Petitioner is shown as accused No.2 in respect of a crime punishable under Section 29 of Insecticide Act based on the report given by the Assistant Director of Agriculture Koppal. -4- CRL.P No. 100487 of 2023 3.2. Based on the credible information he had conducted a raid and collected samples from the shop namely 'Amino Gold Plus' dealing with pesticides and other agriculture items. The samples were sent to the laboratory and the samples find out to be spurious in nature and report thereof shown which is not conducive to the required presence of the pesticides, resulted in launching a criminal prosecution against the petitioner and another accused. Learned Magistrate took cognizance and same is under question before this Court by second accused.
4. Shri. Sandesh Chouta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that the prosecution has failed for non compliance of required statutory provisions and therefore, continuation of the proceedings before the trial Magistrate is nothing but abuse of process of law -5- CRL.P No. 100487 of 2023 and sought for quashing of pending proceedings before learned Magistrate in C.C. No.3945/2022.
5. In support of his arguments, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment rendered by this Court in Criminal Petition No.101933/2022 and also the orders of Co-ordinate Benches in this regard.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader however contended that these are all the matters of trial and non impleading the company who manufactured the pesticides did not vitiate the launched criminal prosecution and that itself could be considered as a factor or favor in the accused/petitioner in the trial and sought for dismissal of the petition.
7. This Court perused the material on record meticulously.-6-
CRL.P No. 100487 of 2023
8. Admittedly, the prosecution did not comply the statutory requirement in arraigning the company which manufactured the pesticides. In this regard, Section 10 of Essential Commodities Act, 1968 reads as under:
"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 -7- CRL.P No. 100487 of 2023 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
(b) "director'' in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm."
9. Shri. Sandesh Chouta, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that provisions of Section 33 of Insecticide Act, is akin to Section 10 of Essential Commodities Act and therefore, in respect of an offence said to have been committed by a company, in the absence of company being arraigned as a party accused, proceedings initiated by the prosecution only against in its individual capacity is impermissible. -8- CRL.P No. 100487 of 2023
10. In order to appreciate the same, it is necessary to call out Section 33 of Insecticide Act, which reads as under:
" 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 -9- CRL.P No. 100487 of 2023 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 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 perusal of the same, there is sufficient force in the arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner.
12. This Court in the case of Mallikarjun S/o. Girimallappa Shegunashi Vs. The State of Karnataka passed in Criminal Petition No.101933/2022 dated 20.07.2022 has clearly held that such prosecution cannot be proceeded further in the absence of company being arraigned as additional accused.
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 100487 of 2023
13. Accordingly, the criminal prosecution with regard to the petitioner/accused herein cannot be allowed to be continued as it results in abuse of process of law. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER Criminal petition is allowed.
Pending proceedings in C.C. No.3945/2022 as against the petitioner/accused is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31