Karnataka High Court
Vijaya Kumar Shetty vs Government Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:33886
WP No. 19039 of 2021
WP No. 19059 of 2021
WP No. 19060 of 2021
WP No. 19975 of 2021
WP No. 20002 of 2021
WP No. 12492 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 19039 OF 2021 (GM-RES) C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 19059 OF 2021(GM-RES),
WRIT PETITION NO. 19060 OF 2021(GM-RES),
WRIT PETITION NO. 19975 OF 2021(GM-RES),
WRIT PETITION NO. 20002 OF 2021(GM-RES),
WRIT PETITION NO. 12492 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
IN W.P.NO.19039/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI.NIMISHAMBA AGRO TRADERS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
Digitally signed by B
MANJUNATHA,
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
S/O MAHADEVAPPA,
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA OPP. TO APMC MARKET,
MYSORE ROAD, KRISHNARAJPETE TALUK,
DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:33886
WP No. 19039 of 2021
WP No. 19059 of 2021
WP No. 19060 of 2021
WP No. 19975 of 2021
WP No. 20002 of 2021
WP No. 12492 of 2022
2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
& INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
KRISHNARAJPETE
TALUK KRISHNARAJAPETE,
DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401.
3. LICENSING AUTHORITY AND
JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
INSECTICIDE REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
DC OFFICE COMPOUND,
MANDYA - 571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS; QUASH
THE COMPLAINT SO FAR AS RELATED TO ACCUSED NO.1 FILED
IN PCR NO.199/2021 CONVERTED AS C.C.NO.1436/2021 VIDE
ANNEXURE - K BY R2 BEFORE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
KRISHNARAJAPETE AND ETC.,
IN W.P.NO.19059/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI.NIMISHAMBA AGRO TRADERS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
MANJUNATHA,
S/O MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OPP. TO APMC MARKET,
MYSORE ROAD, KRISHNARAJPETE TALUK,
DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:33886
WP No. 19039 of 2021
WP No. 19059 of 2021
WP No. 19060 of 2021
WP No. 19975 of 2021
WP No. 20002 of 2021
WP No. 12492 of 2022
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 01.
2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
& INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
KRISHNARAJPETE
TALUK KRISHNARAJAPETE,
DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401.
3. LICENSING AUTHORITY AND
JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
INSECTICIDE REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
DC OFFICE COMPOUND,
MANDYA - 571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT SO FAR AS
RELATED TO ACCUSED NO.1 FILED IN PCR NO.201/2021
CONVERTED AS C.C.NO.1438/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE - Q BY R2
BEFORE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KRISHNARAJAPETE AND ETC.,
IN W.P.NO.19060/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI.NIMISHAMBA AGRO TRADERS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
MANJUNATHA,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:33886
WP No. 19039 of 2021
WP No. 19059 of 2021
WP No. 19060 of 2021
WP No. 19975 of 2021
WP No. 20002 of 2021
WP No. 12492 of 2022
S/O MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OPP. TO APMC MARKET,
MYSORE ROAD, KRISHNARAJPETE TALUK,
DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU -01.
2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
& INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
KRISHNARAJPETE
TALUK KRISHNARAJAPETE,
DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401.
3. LICENSING AUTHORITY AND
JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
INSECTICIDE REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
DC OFFICE COMPOUND,
MANDYA - 571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT SO FAR AS
RELATED TO ACCUSED NO.1 FILED IN PCR NO.203/2021
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:33886
WP No. 19039 of 2021
WP No. 19059 of 2021
WP No. 19060 of 2021
WP No. 19975 of 2021
WP No. 20002 of 2021
WP No. 12492 of 2022
CONVERTED AS C.C.NO.1440/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE - L BY R2
BEFORE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KRISHNARAJAPETE AND ETC.,
IN W.P.NO.19975/2021
BETWEEN:
1. M/S.SHARANU AGRO KENDRA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI.NADAGOWDA,
S/O BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
A.P.M.C. COMPLEX,
MYSORE ROAD, KRISHNARAJPETE TALUK,
DISTRICT MANDYA TOWN - 571 401.
2. SHAMBULINGAIAH,
S/O RACHAIAHSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF SUBHA CROP CARE
PLOT NO.1045,
GROUND FLOOR, 23RD MAIN,
24-A, CROSS, RAILWAY TRACK
PARALLEL ROAD, A BLOCK,
SAHAKARNAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
NAME OF THE PETITIONER NO.2 DELETED AS PER
ORDER DATED 26.11.2021
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:33886
WP No. 19039 of 2021
WP No. 19059 of 2021
WP No. 19060 of 2021
WP No. 19975 of 2021
WP No. 20002 of 2021
WP No. 12492 of 2022
2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
KRISHNARAJPETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA - 571 401.
3. LICENSING AUTHORITY AND
JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
INSECTICIDE REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
DC OFFICE COMPOUND,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA - 571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT SO FAR AS
RELATES TO ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 ARE CONCERNED FILED IN
PCR NO.202/2021 CONVERTED AS C.C.NO.1439/2021 VIDE
ANNEXURE - J BY R2 BEFORE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
KRISHNARAJAPETE AND ETC.,
IN W.P.NO.20002/2021
BETWEEN:
1. M/S.SHARANU AGRO KENDRA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI.NADAGOWDA,
S/O BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
A.P.M.C. COMPLEX,
MYSORE ROAD, KRISHNARAJPETE TALUK,
DISTRICT MANDYA TOWN - 571 401.
2. SHAMBULINGAIAH,
S/O RACHAIAHSWAMY,
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:33886
WP No. 19039 of 2021
WP No. 19059 of 2021
WP No. 19060 of 2021
WP No. 19975 of 2021
WP No. 20002 of 2021
WP No. 12492 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF SUBHA CROP CARE
PLOT NO.1045,
GROUND FLOOR, 23RD MAIN,
24-A, CROSS, RAILWAY TRACK
PARALLEL ROAD, A BLOCK,
SAHAKARNAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
NAME OF THE PETITIONER NO.2 DELETED AS PER
ORDER DATED 26.11.2021
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
KRISHNARAJPETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA - 571 401.
3. LICENSING AUTHORITY AND
JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
INSECTICIDE REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
DC OFFICE COMPOUND,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA - 571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP)
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:33886
WP No. 19039 of 2021
WP No. 19059 of 2021
WP No. 19060 of 2021
WP No. 19975 of 2021
WP No. 20002 of 2021
WP No. 12492 of 2022
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT SO FAR AS
RELATED TO ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 ARE CONCERNED FILED IN
PCR NO.200/2021 CONVERTED AS C.C.NO.1437/2021 VIDE
ANNEXURE - J BY R2 BEFORE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
KRISHNARAJAPETE AND ETC.,
IN W.P.NO.12492/2022
BETWEEN:
VIJAYA KUMAR SHETTY,
S/O LATE PADMA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF
CHITTARI AGRO CARE PVT. LTD.,
69, 89 FEET RD., I.T.I LAYOUT,
MALATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 056.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 01.
2. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER &
INSECTICIDE INSPECTOR,
REPRESENTED BY
SMT.RAKSHITA V.R.,
RAITA SAMPARK KEDRA,
KASABA TALUK, BELURU - 573 115,
HASSAN.
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC:33886
WP No. 19039 of 2021
WP No. 19059 of 2021
WP No. 19060 of 2021
WP No. 19975 of 2021
WP No. 20002 of 2021
WP No. 12492 of 2022
3. LICENSING AUTHORITY AND
JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
INSECTICIDE REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
DC OFFICE COMPOUND,
HASSAN - 573 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASHING THE COMPLAINT FILED IN PCR
NO.37/2022 DATED 10.05.2022 ANNEXURE - D AS AGAINST
THE PETITIONER ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.2 FILED BY THE
R2 BEFORE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELUR HASSAN DISTRICT
AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Since the issue involved in these petitions is similar, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.
2. The petitioners in the respective petitions are before this Court challenging the proceedings registered for the offence punishable under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act (for short 'the Act').
3. The respondent-insecticide Inspector filed private complaints under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for contravention of Section 9, 13, 3(K) and Section 29 of the Insecticide Act, 1968.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33886 WP No. 19039 of 2021 WP No. 19059 of 2021 WP No. 19060 of 2021 WP No. 19975 of 2021 WP No. 20002 of 2021 WP No. 12492 of 2022
4. The summary of the complaint/s is that the Insecticide Inspector after collecting the sample of the insecticide from the shops belonging to the petitioners, sent it to the Insecticide Analyst for analysis and thereafter, the Test Analyst submitted the report stating that the sample of the insecticide collected were misbranded. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioners for explanation, to which the petitioners submitted a reply which was not satisfactory. The learned Magistrate after perusing the complaints took cognizance of the aforesaid offences. Hence, these petitions.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the insecticide Inspector by not furnishing the report of the insecticide analyst along with the notice has deprived the petitioner/s of their legitimate right to send the sample of the subject fertilizers to the Central Insecticide Laboratory under sub section 4 of Section 24 of the Act, since the report of the insecticide analyst is not a conclusive proof. She further submits that the complaint was filed after expiry of the shelf life of the sample of the subject fertilizer.
6. In support she places reliance on the order passed by this Court in the case of RAFEL DEL RIYO VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2022 (2) KLJ 608.
7. Learned HCGP for the respondent-State submits that the sample of the insecticide which was in possession of the petitioners who are the retailers have been declared as
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33886 WP No. 19039 of 2021 WP No. 19059 of 2021 WP No. 19060 of 2021 WP No. 19975 of 2021 WP No. 20002 of 2021 WP No. 12492 of 2022 misbranded and the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences and the same does not warrant interference.
8. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
9. Section 21 of the Act, deals with the powers of Insecticide Inspector to enter and search any premises in which he has reason to believe that an offence under the Act or Rules is committed or allowed to be committed.
10. Section 22 of the Act, deals with the procedure to be followed by the insecticide Inspector. Sub-section 6 of the Act, states that portion of the sample collected shall be sent to insecticide analyst for analysis and one portion shall be produced before the Court before which proceedings if any are instituted in respect of the subject insecticide.
11. Section 24(1) of the Act, states that the insecticide analyst shall within a period of 30 days submit his report to the insecticide Inspector.
12. Sub-section 2 of Section 24 of the Act states that on receipt of the report, he shall send the report to the person from whom the sample was collected.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33886 WP No. 19039 of 2021 WP No. 19059 of 2021 WP No. 19060 of 2021 WP No. 19975 of 2021 WP No. 20002 of 2021 WP No. 12492 of 2022
13. Section 24(3) of the Act, states that the report signed by the insecticide analyst shall be evidence of facts and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken within the 28 days of the receipt of the copy of the report in writing the insecticide inspector or the Court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce his evidence in contraversion of the report.
14. Section 24(4) of the Act, states that unless the sample has been tested analyzed in the Central Insecticide Laboratory, the report submitted under section 24(1) shall not be a conclusive proof.
15. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARAYANA -vs- UNIQUE FARMAID PRIVATE LIMITED1 has held as follows:
"11. Sub-section (1) of Section 30 which appears to be relevant only prescribes in effect that ignorance would be of no defence but that does not mean that if there are contraventions of other mandatory provisions of the Act, the accused have no remedy. The procedure for testing the sample is prescribed and if it is contravened to the prejudice of the accused, he certainly has the right to seek dismissal of the complaint. There cannot be two opinions about that. Then in order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory, it is incumbent on the 1 (1999) 8 SCC 190
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33886 WP No. 19039 of 2021 WP No. 19059 of 2021 WP No. 19060 of 2021 WP No. 19975 of 2021 WP No. 20002 of 2021 WP No. 12492 of 2022 prosecution to file the complaint expeditiously so that the right of the accused is not lost. In the present case, by the time the respondents were asked to appear before the Court, the expiry date of the insecticide was already over and sending of the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory at that late stage would be of no consequence. This issue is no longer res integra. In State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. [(1996) 11 SCC 613 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 312 : JT (1996) 10 SC 480] this Court in somewhat similar circumstances said that the procedure laid down under Section 24 of the Act deprived the accused to have the sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and adduce evidence of the report so given in his defence. This Court stressed the need to lodge the complaint with utmost despatch so that the accused may opt to avail the statutory defence. The Court held that the accused had been deprived of a valuable right statutorily available to him. On this view of the matter, the Court did not allow the criminal complaint to proceed against the accused. We have cases under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 involving the same question. In this connection reference be made to decisions of this Court in State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal [(1998) 5 SCC 343 :
1998 SCC (Cri) 1315] under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram [AIR 1967 SC 970 : (1967) 2 SCR 116] , Chetumal v. State of M.P. [(1981) 3 SCC 72 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 632] and Calcutta Municipal Corpn. v. Pawan Kumar Saraf [(1999) 2 SCC 400 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 218] all under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954."
(Emphasis supplied)
16 In the instant cases, the petitioners were not furnished with the report of the Insecticide analyst along with the show cause notices and the private complaint was filed
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33886 WP No. 19039 of 2021 WP No. 19059 of 2021 WP No. 19060 of 2021 WP No. 19975 of 2021 WP No. 20002 of 2021 WP No. 12492 of 2022 after more than 2 years from the date of the report submitted by the Insecticide Analyst by which time the shelf life of the subject insecticide had already expired, thus depriving the petitioners of their legitimate right to send the sample to the Central Insecticide Laboratory. The petitioners having been deprived of valuable rights statutorily available, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law.
17. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. Writ petitions are allowed.
ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.Nos.1436/2021, 1437/2021, 1438/2021, 1439/2021, 1440/2021 and pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Krishnarajapete and C.C.No.630/2022 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC Belur, Hassan District insofar as it relates to petitioners herein, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43