Karnataka High Court
Srinivas Traders vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 20 September, 2022
Author: P.N.Desai
Bench: P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200905/2022
BETWEEN
SRINIVAS TRADERS
SINDHANOOR ROAD, MANVI,
BY PROPRIETOR,
D. SATYANARAYANA
AGE. 45 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O MANVI, DIST RAICHUR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUN CHOUDAPURKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ADDL SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FERTILIZERS
REPRESENTED BY
SRI NIYAZ MOHAMMED MUNNAR
INSPECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
AND FERTILIZERS, MANVI
DIST. RAICHUR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO, QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED
2
NO. 1 IN PCR NO. 95/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC AT MANVI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 3 AND 7
OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short), seeking to quash the entire proceedings, registration of CC number and issuance of summons against petitioner/accused No.1 in PCR No.95/2019 (C.C.No.1142/2020) on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Manvi, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'E.C.Act' for short), 1955.
2. It is contended that respondent No.2-Niyaz Mohammed Munnar, Inspector of Agriculture and Fertilizers, Manvi, has filed private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the Civil Judge & JMFC, Manvi, alleging that on 27.08.2019 at about 12:45 noon he inspected the shop of the petitioner and inspected the stock, found that the fertilizer 17:17:17 granolated mixed fertilizer which was supplied by 3 Saviyo Bio Organic and Fertilizer Pvt. Ltd., Belagavi, is misbranded, thereby the provisions of Fertilizer Control Order 1985 is violated. He collected the sample under mahazar and sent the sample for test to fertilizer laboratory, Gangavati. As per the report of the laboratory, the seized fertilizer was found to be misbranded. Thereafter, this complaint came to be lodged. Learned JMFC has registered the case and taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri.Arun Choudapurkar, Learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the complaint filed by respondent No.2 is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. The petitioner has not committed any offences. The petitioner is only a dealer and he has no role either in manufacturing the fertilizer or preparing such misbranded fertilizer. The sample is taken from sealed pocket and he has not kept the fertilizer in an open pocket. He has received fertilizers as it is from the 4 manufacturers by purchasing the same. Therefore, ingredients of the said offence are not attracted against him. The petitioner cannot be made answerable for the misbranded fertilizers as it is known to manufacturers only. The petitioner is no way concerned with the manufacture or quality of the said fertilizers. It is the domino of manufacturer alone. Hence, learned counsel prayed that this petitioner having no such knowledge regarding alleged misbranding or non-maintenance of quality and ratio by the manufacturer. Therefore, impleading him as accused in this case is unwarranted. No public have made any complaint that petitioner is selling low quality of fertilizers. Therefore, ingredients of offence under Section 3 and 7 of E.C.Act, are not attracted. Hence, he prayed to quash the entire proceedings initiated against him.
5. Against this, learned High Court Government Pleader argued that when Inspector inspecting the shop of the petitioner took the sample and sent it for test and the test report shows that it is misbranded. Therefore, the petitioner is knew that the said fertilizer is misbranded and 5 he also committed the offence along with other persons. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have perused the petition averments, order sheet and other materials placed on record.
7. The order sheet dated 30.11.2020 shows that learned JMFC took cognizance and on perusing the complaint, the case registered and issued summons. Admittedly, the manufacturer of the said fertilizer is one Saviyo Bio Organic and Fertilizer Pvt. Ltd., Belagavi, the said company is not made as a party in this proceedings.
8. This Court in Crl.P.No.201683/2021 and connected matters disposed of on 21.12.2021, in the case of Mahesh Naik S/o Vijaya S. Naik vs. The State of Karnataka and Another has considered the said aspect of non-impleading the manufacturer/company as party and only filing the case against the dealers. It is also stated that Section 10 of the E.C.Act, clearly states that if there is offence committed, the company ought to have been made a party to the proceedings.
6
9. In order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to refer to Section 10 of the E.C. 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."
10. Therefore, when a complaint is lodged for alleged contravention of Section 3 of the E.C.Act, which is punishable under Section 7 of the E.C.Act, not only the person who is responsible or incharge is to be made as a party, but the company shall also be made as a party. The accused in this case is only dealer.
11. It is evident that in view of Section 3 and 7 of the E.C.Act, and also Order 19(a) of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985, there is bar under Section 10 of the E.C.Act, to take cognisance unless the company is made a party. It is 7 stated that this petitioner is only a dealer and he has kept sealed pockets of the fertilizers when the complainant inspected the shop and the sample was also taken from the sealed pockets only. Therefore, in view of the fact that the company is not made as a party and in view of the bar, this Court already in Crl.P.No.200840/2022 and connected matters DD.12.08.2022, has quashed such initiation of proceedings in identical facts or case, therefore, this petition is also deserves to be allowed.
12. Therefore, learned JMFC without verifying the ingredients of Section 10 of the E.C.Act, has mechanically registered the case and issued summons, which shows that the same is bad in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
is hereby allowed.
The impugned order dated 30.11.2020 passed by Civil Judge & JMFC, Manvi, in PCR No.95/2019 (C.C.NO.1142/2020) and further proceedings against this petitioner is hereby quashed.8
However, liberty is reserved to the complainant to cure the defect and proceed against the accused in accordance with law, if he is advised to do so and if he is entitled under law.
Sd/-
JUDGE s du