Karnataka High Court
S P Swamy vs State Of Karnataka on 9 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:7498
WP No. 2483 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 2483 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
S.P.SWAMY
S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
THE 'KARTHA' OF HUF
M/S. KISSAN FERTILISER COMPANY,
LOCATED AT 808, KISSAN FERTILIZER COMPANY,
INDUSTRIAL AREA, SOMANAHALLI MADDUR,
MANDYA, KARNATAKA - 571 429.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SANJEEVINI J STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARISHETTY REPRESENTED BY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF FERTILIZER INSPECTOR AND
KARNATAKA AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
RAITHA SAMPARKA KENDRA, KASABA,
OFFICE OF THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
MADDUR - 563 125
MANDYA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:7498
WP No. 2483 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER IN CC NO.396/2025
ARISING OUT OF UNNUMBERED PCR OF 2025, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF HON'BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR,
FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 7 AND 23b OF THE FERTILIZER
CONTROL ORDER, 1985 AND SECTION 3 OF ESSENTIAL
COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 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
Heard the learned counsel Sri. Nitin Ramesh, appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayers:
"a. Quash the entire proceedings against the Accused/Petitioner in CC No.396/2025 arising out of unnumbered PCR of 2025, pending on the file of -3- NC: 2026:KHC:7498 WP No. 2483 of 2026 HC-KAR Hon'ble Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, for violation of Section 7 and 23b of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 at Annexure-A & B. b. And Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice."
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.24550/2024 disposed on 23-01-2025, wherein it has held as follows:
".... .... ....
5. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, Section 10 of the EC Act mandates that in a proceedings in relation to offence under Section 7 of the EC Act, r/w Section 19(A)(B) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, it was incumbent upon the respondent - complainant to arraign the proprietary firm and partnership firm as parties along with the petitioners to the proceedings in the absence of which the entire proceedings would be vitiated as held by this Court in Mahesh Naik's case supra, wherein it was held as under:
"Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondent / State.
2. The question involved in this petition since being by a decision of this Court rendered in Crl.P.No.102651/2022 dated 14.09.2022, with the consent of both the learned counsel, petition is taken up for disposal.
3. The petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.573/2021 pending on the -4- NC: 2026:KHC:7498 WP No. 2483 of 2026 HC-KAR file of the Court of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol.
4. A private complaint is filed by the Fertilizer Inspector-cum-Assistant Director of Agriculture, (HQ), O/o Joint Director of Agriculture, Bagalkote, against the petitioner and another alleging that they have committed an offence under Clause 19 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 ('FCO, 1985' for short) read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, for having manufactured and sold the non- standard fertilizer.
5. Accused No.1 is said to be the owner / proprietor of the firm M/s. Mahantesh Enterprises, doing business as a retailer in fertilizers and the petitioner/accused No.2 is said to be the Compliance Officer of one ZUARI AGRO CHEMICAL LTD. It is alleged that he is responsible officer for 19-19-19 complex fertilizer of Zuari Agro Chemical Ltd., as per Clause 24 of the FCO, 1985 and the said company has manufactured the non-standard fertilizers in question and supplied to the retailers and thereby committed the afore-mentioned offence.
6. The charges leveled against the petitioner is that he has violated Clause 19 of the FCO, 1985 read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Admittedly, the company is not arraigned as an accused in the complaint. In similar circumstances, a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the above referred petition has held as under:
"8. Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, deals with the offence by Companies and it 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 -5- NC: 2026:KHC:7498 WP No. 2483 of 2026 HC-KAR 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 en 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.
9. Perusal of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 makes it evident that wherever contravention is by a Company, then every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the compa`ny 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. Therefore, petitioner is being made liable on account of he being an employee of Company in question and therefore, until and unless the company is arraigned as accused, the petitioner cannot be held responsible.
10. In fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited while considering the offence committed by the company has held as follows:
"53. It is to be borne in mind that Section 141 of the Act is concerned with the offences by the company. It makes the other persons vicariously liable for commission of an offence on the part of the company. As has been stated by us earlier, the vicarious liability gets attracted when the condition precedent laid down in Section 141 of the Act stands satisfied. There can be no dispute that as the liability is penal in nature, a strict construction of the provision would be necessitous and, in a way, the warrant.-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:7498 WP No. 2483 of 2026 HC-KAR
56. We have referred to the aforesaid passages only to highlight that there has to be strict observance of the provisions regard being had to the legislative intendment because it deals with penal provisions and a penalty is not to be imposed affecting the rights of persons, whether juristic entities or individuals, unless they are arrayed as accused. It is to be kept in mind that the power of punishment is vested in the legislature and that is absolute in Section 141 of the Act which clearly speaks of commission of offence by the company. The learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently urged that the use of the term "as well as" in the section is of immense significance and, in its tentacle, it brings in the company as well as the Director and/or other officers who are responsible for the acts of the company and, therefore, a prosecution against the Directors or other officers is tenable even if the company is not arraigned as an accused. The words "as well as" have to be understood in the context.
59. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the drag- net on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh [(1970) 3 SCC 491: 1971 SCC (Cri) 97) which is a three-Judge Bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal [(1984) 4 SCC 352: 1984 SCC (Cri) 620] does not correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada [(2000) 1 SCC 1: 2001 SCC (Cri) 174] is overruled with the qualifier as stated in para 51. The decision in Modi Distillery [(1987) 3 SCC 684: 1987 SCC (Cri) 632] has to be treated to be restricted to its own facts as has been explained by us hereinabove."
7. In the light of the above decision, proceedings against the petitioner is not sustainable in law.
8. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) Petition is allowed, -7- NC: 2026:KHC:7498 WP No. 2483 of 2026 HC-KAR
ii) The proceedings against the petitioner / accused No.1 in C.C.No.573/2021 on the file of the Court of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol, is quashed.
IA-1/2023 is disposed of."
6. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact as is clear from the impugned complaint, which is filed only against the petitioners and the firms i.e., M/s. Hylyne Agencies and M/s. Aries Agro Limited, have not been arraigned as accused persons along with the petitioners and consequently, the impugned proceedings clearly contravenes to Section 10 of the EC Act and the same are not maintainable and deserve to be quashed."
4. In the light of the issue standing covered by the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate bench, the petition stands disposed on the same terms.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.396 of 2025 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, stands quashed qua the petitioner.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 145