Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjungouda S/O Ishwaragouda ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7461
CRL.P No. 101553 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. 101553 OF 2025
(482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. MALLIKARJUNGOUDA
S/O. ISHWARAGOUDA KOLLUR,
AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, RETAILER/OWNER
OF CHANDALINGESHWAR ENTERPRISES,
BESIDE KRISHNA RESTAURANT ,
KOLUR COMPLEX,
NEAR BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE,
TALUK KUSHTAGI, DISTRICT: KOPPAL,
PIN CODE-583277.
2. SOMASHEKHAR S/O. SANJEEVAPPA,
Digitally signed by OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, RETAILOR/OWNER
RAKESH S
HARIHAR OF SHREE BALAJI TRADING COMPANY,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
NO.4041, WARD NO.05, KANAKAGIRI,
TAVARAGERA ROAD,
KANAKAGIRI, TQ. KANAKAGIRI,
KOPPAL DISTRICT, PIN CODE-583283.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR B. HALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7461
CRL.P No. 101553 of 2025
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD.
2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
REPRESENTED BY NINGAPPA,
ASSISTANT AGRICULTURE DIRCTOR,
(VILLIGANCE-1) & FERTILIZER INSPECTOR,
JOINT AGRICULTURE DIRECTOR OFFICE,
KOPPAL PIN CODE-583231.
R/BY SPP, HIGH COURT,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(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 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1-2
IS CONCERNED ONLY AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.1768/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC KUSHTAGI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 7 OF
ESSENTIALS COMMODITIES ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7461
CRL.P No. 101553 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.1768/2022 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushtagi, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'E.C. Act').
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant, who is respondent herein, was working as Assistant Agricultural Officer in the Department of Agriculture, Shahapur, he filed a private complaint before the jurisdictional Court on behalf of State on 20.09.2022 for the aforesaid offences alleging that he visited the shop of petitioner No.1 and he was not having the original letter "O" and he was in storage of phosphate rich organic manure (DOP) 18.46.0 organic fertilizer for sale which was found in 70 bags and each bag carrying 50 kg and thus, he collected samples from the said bags for the purpose of -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7461 CRL.P No. 101553 of 2025 HC-KAR sample in prescribed manner under the act and at the same time, he conducted the panchanama at the spot. Further it is alleged by respondent No.2 in his complaint that as per the fertilizer control order 1985 clause 28(1) out of 3 samples, first sample was sent to the Assistant Director of Agriculture Organic fertilizer quality control Laboratory Kothnur D (Kalaburagi) and second sample was given to accused No.1 and third sample was kept by the complaint himself only. The same was sent for analyses report. The analyses report was issued by the Assistant Agricultural Director Organic quality control Laboratory Kotonur (Kalaburgi) dated 21.06.2022 that the alleged Organic fertilizer is not in according to control order 1985 rules and also same is contented less Phosphorus (p205- 1.34) nitrogen, hence said organic fertilizer is substandard one. Accordingly, he proceeded to prosecute the petitioners under the provisions of Clauses 8(2), 19(a), 2(T) and 8(2) of the Fertilizers Control Order, 1985 and Section 7 of the E.C. Act.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7461 CRL.P No. 101553 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
4. 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 petitioners do not survive for consideration and liable to be quashed.
5. 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 the time of taking cognizance. Thus, prayed to dismiss the petition. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7461 CRL.P No. 101553 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. 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 petitioner No.1 in three samples and sent the same to the Assistant Director of Agriculture Organic fertilizer quality control Laboratory Kothnur D (Kalaburagi) and second sample was given to accused No.1 and third sample was kept by the complaint himself only and later he came to know from the report that the said fertilizer was not of specifications.
7. 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 -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7461 CRL.P No. 101553 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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_ -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7461 CRL.P No. 101553 of 2025 HC-KAR
(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. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7461 CRL.P No. 101553 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.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7461 CRL.P No. 101553 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.]"
8. 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.
9. In the present case, the petitioners are the owners of their respective companies. On careful perusal of the entire averments of the complaint, the complainant committed an error in not-arraying the Company as a
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7461 CRL.P No. 101553 of 2025 HC-KAR party to the proceedings. As such, prosecution does not survive for the aforesaid reasons.
10. 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 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.
11. 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
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7461 CRL.P No. 101553 of 2025 HC-KAR 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. 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
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7461 CRL.P No. 101553 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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 owners of the Fertilizer Company. 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.
15. In the light of the above observations, I proceed to pass the following:
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7461 CRL.P No. 101553 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The proceedings in C.C. No.1768/2022 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Kushtagi is hereby quashed.
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.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RSH /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45