Karnataka High Court
Basappa S/O Shivappa Janagouda vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7455
CRL.P No. 102125 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102125 OF 2025
(482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
BASAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA JANAGOUDA,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: CEO OF PKPS,
ADIHUDI, R/O. ADIHUDI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587330.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAHUL S. KUNTOJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AND
FERTILIZER INSPECTOR, SAVALAGI,
SHRI. RAVINDRA N. TULASIGERI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. GAZETTED OFFICER,
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
R/O. AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, SAVALAGI,
HARIHAR
Location: High TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587330.
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.
(U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO.3787/2024 REGISTERED AGAINST
THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.1) ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S.7(1)(a) (i AND ii) OF THE
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7455
CRL.P No. 102125 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., (Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) praying to quash the taking of cognizance in C.C.No.3787 /2024 for the offence punishable under Section 7(1)A (i and ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'E.C. Act'), pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant was working as Agricultural Officer, Savalagi as per the government notification No.AGD/134/AMS/2016 dated 03.10.2016 and he has been appointed as Fertilizer Inspector under Clause 27 of the FCO, 1985. It is stated in the complaint that the first accused is the Secretary of the PKPS, Adihudi and is in charge and responsible for the conduct of business of the said society. The said society is doing business as a retailer in Fertilizers buying form the -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7455 CRL.P No. 102125 of 2025 HC-KAR other Trading companies and sold it to the farmers and has holding the retailer's license for selling Fertilizers. It is stated that the second accused is Manager of the firm namely Shree Mahalaxmi Trading Company situated Jamkhandi. The said firm is doing business as a retailer in Fertilizers and is holding the retailer's license for selling Fertilizers. It is further alleged that the third accused is owner of the firm who has manufactured the alleged fertilizer which is questioned/adulterated fertilizer. The Non-standard Fertilizer in question is manufactured and supplied to the retailer by the third accused company. The manufacturer supplied the fertilizer to 2nd accused firm and thereby, it has been supplied to the 1st accused society.
3. It is alleged that during the inspection by the complainant, the first accused was present, and the complainant drew the sample of the Fertilizers called NPK 17:17:17 Mixture (the bag was in a sealed condition) from the stock of the Fertilizers. The sample was taken and -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7455 CRL.P No. 102125 of 2025 HC-KAR divided into two parts, in that, one sample was handed over to the 1st accused and another one was sent to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Fertilizer Control Laboratory, Dharwad and report was returned as Non- standard Fertilizer. Thereafter, the complainant issued the notices to all three accused. Further, the accused persons have committed an offence under clause 2(q) (iii) and 19 of Fertilizer [control) order 1985 and read with sections 7(1) A (I and ii) of Essential commodities act, 1955 and hence, sought action against the accused.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
5. It is contended that, the Company should be made as accused along with other accused. Failing to array the Company as accused is said to be illegal and as such initiation of prosecution against present petitioner do not survive for consideration and liable to be quashed. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7455 CRL.P No. 102125 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State vehemently submitted that the complainant has not made the Company as accused in the proceedings, but there is scope under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., to implead the Company as accused before the trial Court, therefore not impleading the Company as accused in the proceeding is not fatal to the case of prosecution and this irregularities can be cured at the time of taking cognizance. Thus, prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis and on perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the complainant collected sample fertilizer from the shop of accused/petitioner No.1 in two packets and sealed the same and he sent one packet to laboratory and one packet retained with him; later he came to know from laboratory report that the said fertilizer was not of standard.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7455 CRL.P No. 102125 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. Admittedly, the complainant has not made the Company as party to the proceedings. Here, it is necessary to refer Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which 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 subsection 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 subsection (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 -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7455 CRL.P No. 102125 of 2025 HC-KAR 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. 1[10A.
Offences to be cognizable._ Notwithstanding anything contained in 2[the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)] every offence punishable under this Act shall be "cognizable 3***].
[10B. Power of court to publish name, place of business, etc., of companies convicted under the Act._(1) Where any company is convicted under this Act, it shall be competent for the court convicting the company to cause the name and place of business of the company, nature of the contravention, the fact that the company has been so convicted and such other particulars as the court may consider to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, to be published at the expense of the company in such newspapers or in such other manner as the court may direct.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7455 CRL.P No. 102125 of 2025 HC-KAR (2) No publication under sub-section (1) shall be made until the period for preferring an appeal against the orders of the court has expired without any appeal having been preferred, or such an appeal, having been preferred, has been disposed of.
(3) The expenses of any publication under subsection (1) shall be recoverable from the company as if it were a fine imposed by the court.
Explanation._ For the purposes of this section, "company" has the meaning assigned to it in clause (a) of the Explanation of section 10.] [10C. Presumption of culpable mental state._(1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
Explanation._ In this section, "culpable mental state"
includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7455 CRL.P No. 102125 of 2025 HC-KAR reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.]"
9. A careful reading of the above provision, makes it clear that, if any offence committed by the Company, the Company should be made as party to the proceedings. Unless, the Company is made as a party to the proceedings, the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the other accused persons, would not be proper.
10. In the present case, the petitioner is the CEO of the PKPS society. On careful perusal of the entire averments of the complaint, the complainant committed an error in not-arraying the Company as a party to the proceedings. As such, prosecution does not survive for the aforesaid reasons.
11. In the of case of Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd., reported in (2000) 1 SCC 1 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "the provisions do not contain a condition that prosecution of the company is sine qua non for
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7455 CRL.P No. 102125 of 2025 HC-KAR prosecution of the other persons who fall within the second and the third categories mentioned above". Therefore, unless the Company as a principal accused has committed the offence, the persons mentioned in Sub- Section (1) would not liable and cannot be prosecuted. In the case of DAYLE DE' SOUZA VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA arising out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.3913 OF 2020 at Para 27 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"In terms of the ratio above, a company being a juristic person cannot be imprisoned, but it can be subjected to a fine, which in itself is a punishment. Every punishment has adverse consequences, and therefore, prosecution of the company is mandatory. The exception would possibly be when the company itself has ceased to exist or cannot be prosecuted due to a statutory bar. However, such exceptions are of no relevance in the present case. Thus, the present prosecution must fail for this reason as well".
12. In the case of M/s. Cheminova India Limited & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. Crl.A.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7455 CRL.P No. 102125 of 2025 HC-KAR No.750/2021, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4144/2020 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "in view of the specific provision in the Act dealing with the offences by companies, which fixes the responsibility and the responsible person of the Company for conduct of its business, by making bald and vague allegations, 2nd Appellant - Managing Director cannot be prosecuted on vague allegation that he being the Managing Director of the 1st Appellant - Company. A reading of Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 also makes it clear that only responsible person of the Company, as well as the Company alone shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against".
13. A careful reading of the above provisions and the decisions cited supra and the facts and circumstances of the present case, make it clear that, if any offence committed by the Company, the Company should be made as party to the proceedings. Unless Company is made as
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7455 CRL.P No. 102125 of 2025 HC-KAR party to the proceedings, initiation of criminal proceedings against other accused persons would not be proper.
14. In the present case the petitioners are stated to be the Chief Manager and the Manager of the Fertilizer Company, respectively. The complainant must array the Company as party to the proceedings. But he committed an error in not arraying the Company as party to the proceedings. As such, the petition is deserves to be allowed. In the light of the above observations, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The proceedings in C.C. No.3787/2024 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Jamkhandi, is hereby quashed.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7455 CRL.P No. 102125 of 2025 HC-KAR iii. However, it is made clear that this quashment order will not come in the way of the complainant initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with law, subject to law of limitation as contemplated under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AC /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24